Quick Roundup 349

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

Privatizing Roadways

Steven Malanga has once again penned an interesting article that at once indicates that capitalism could save our roadways by making them profitable -- and indirectly brings up why mere advocacy of "privatization" of a few random industries can not and will not lead us to lasting prosperity.

Today's use -- including by Malanga -- of the term "privatization" in the context of transportation infrastructure does not mean that the government has become fully disentangled from said infrastructure as it ought to be. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that even the introduction of some elements of the free market into that sector of the economy has yielded great benefit.

Some 3,400 miles of toll highways linking cities in France have been built with money from private investors. The United Kingdom has used so-called build-to-operate agreements with private companies and capital for 20 years to finance new roads, tunnels and bridges. Developing countries as different as Mexico, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia have followed suit to one degree or another. China is using private capital for a massive road building effort which involves linking its major cities with super highways.

This is good news, and in the very next paragraph, Malanga explains how this can occur.

One reason such efforts have been successful is that there is plenty of capital out there looking for the kind of solid, predictable long-term returns that this investing brings. Huge global pension funds with very long investing horizons have targeted this area, which is considerably less volatile than investing in equities (or mortgage-backed securities, it seems). In a typical deal, a bank or investment house managing pension money partners with a company that is experienced in operating roads or bridges, and the pair either build or take over an existing road with tolls on it, then contract to operate it for many years in exchange for the toll revenues. [bold added]

This sounds good -- except that governments are busily nationalizing other industries outright all over the place. This means that governments do not honor private property as a matter of principle, making the "predictability" of any long-term investment questionable. And that is how the article accidentally brings up the flaw in the prevailing notion of "privatization".

In sum, the privatization isn't really privatization. (You can get that from this article, too, but having discussed that already, I decided not to belabor it.) And, even if the companies really owned the roadways, the ability to plan long-term that comes from the government consistently respecting property rights isn't really there. The moment some statist sees roads as sweet, low-hanging fruit, they could be taken back -- for the "public good", of course!

Medical Innovation in Houston

How can one stop a virus that mutates, rendering the usual approach of vaccination useless?

By finding what part of the virus is invariant and creating a way to attack it!

[Sudhir] Paul and his team have zeroed in on a section of a key protein in HIV's structure that does not mutate.

"The virus needs at least one constant region, and that is the essence of calling it the Achilles heel," Paul said.

That Achilles heel is the doctors' way in. They take advantage of it with something called an abzyme. [link added]

This new therapy could prevent infection in those at risk and could more effectively control the disease in those who already have it.

Quiz Time!

Any past or present D&D aficionados should enjoy this one!

What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?

Via Armed and Dangerous, I learned that I am pretty much what I used to play back in college! (Well, actually, it was usually a Chaotic Neutral Magic User/Thief.) The part about alignment is predictably off, but still amusing.

I Am A: True Neutral Elf Wizard (6th Level)

Ability Scores:

• Strength-13
• Dexterity-13
• Constitution-13
• Intelligence-17
• Wisdom-14
• Charisma-14

Alignment:

True Neutral A true neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. He doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most true neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil after all, he would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, he's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Some true neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. True neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion. However, true neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it represents apathy, indifference, and a lack of conviction.

Race:

Elves are known for their poetry, song, and magical arts, but when danger threatens they show great skill with weapons and strategy. Elves can live to be over 700 years old and, by human standards, are slow to make friends and enemies, and even slower to forget them. Elves are slim and stand 4.5 to 5.5 feet tall. They have no facial or body hair, prefer comfortable clothes, and possess unearthly grace. Many others races find them hauntingly beautiful.

Class:

Wizards are arcane spellcasters who depend on intensive study to create their magic. To wizards, magic is not a talent but a difficult, rewarding art. When they are prepared for battle, wizards can use their spells to devastating effect. When caught by surprise, they are vulnerable. The wizard's strength is his spells, everything else is secondary. He learns new spells as he experiments and grows in experience, and he can also learn them from other wizards. In addition, over time a wizard learns to manipulate his spells so they go farther, work better, or are improved in some other way. A wizard can call a familiar - a small, magical, animal companion that serves him. With a high Intelligence, wizards are capable of casting very high levels of spells. [grammatical corrections, added link to familiar]

In the quiz, fellow Objectivists will notice the usual allotment of false moral/practical type dichotomies and find themselves pinching their noses till they bleed while having to decide -- more than once, for Christ's sake! -- which religion they "prefer"! On balance, however, it was a pretty fun quiz.

Now, I've got to get my wife to take this some weekend. She used to play D&D as well, and she's somewhat hobbit-like -- except that I do joke that she must wax her feet! It would be cute if she came out as a hobbit!

-- CAV

This post was composed in advance and scheduled for publication at 5:00 A.M. on July 31, 2008.

Creationism Gets Green Light in Louisiana

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Despite heroic opposition, irrationality made headway in Louisiana with the passage of the impressive-sounding, Science Education Act.

This law will allow teachers to use "supplemental materials" to promote the "open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

That might sound pretty good, given the deplorable state of science education in the public schools, but it's not. The purpose of this bill is to allow schools to teach Creationism in the science classrooms, a blatant violation of the separation of church and state.

People who believe in Creationism--the biblical explanation for the origins of the earth and life--are fighting against Darwin's theory of evolution, a brilliantly-discovered thesis which ignores God in favor of actual facts.

There is no credible scientific debate against evolution. It is the unifying theory in all biology, and has been proven over and over again. The mere act of denouncing it in favor of "what the bible says" does not constitute a valid competing theory.

The bill's stated goal of teaching "critical thinking" is a sickening offense to the human mind. It will critically shut off all rational thinking, exhorting young minds to accept on faith alone ancient mythical tales of our beginnings.

The Discovery Institute, a big promoter of teaching Creationism, deeply criticized the opponents of Louisiana's law. They had the nauseating audacity to equate Galileo's struggle against the church with their struggle against what they call, the "antichurch." The author states: "But a funny thing about the truth is that no one can control it because sooner or later it reveals itself."

This statement is a direct repudiation of our essence as humans: that we are beings who must discover the truths of reality by a process of reason in order to survive. The faithful have no more choice about this fact of our existence than the non-faithful.

Teaching the myth of Creationism, which requires faith, alongside the science of evolution, which requires reason, will cause confusion in students' minds about what science is and why it's important. It will impair--not enhance--the development of their ability to think.

Learning about evolution is a wondrous and fascinating experience. And it's a crime that evangelicals are basically telling the next generation: "learning how to reason is irrelevant."

Protection? For Whom? No One.

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

Allen Prather wrote me yesterday about a remarkable and inexcusable abuse of federal power by the Environmental Protection Agency against ordinary citizens minding their own business in our home state of Mississippi.

Wyatt Emmerich of the Greenwood Commonwealth has been following developments. His column from last week opens chillingly:

Robert Lucas, his daughter Robbie, and his engineer, [are] all in prison now for many years because they dared to fight the EPA's designation of their pine land as "wetlands."

Daughter Robbie is behind bars for seven years, separated from her 1-year-old son. Had they plea-bargained and pled guilty, they probably would be free now. Instead, they maintained their innocence and fought the EPA in court, where the feds brought the full force of their prosecutorial power on them. Judicial precedent forbade the court from even ruling on the key issue: whether or not their land really was "wetlands."

Emmerich, sounding a clarion call, states that, "Every landowner in Mississippi needs to understand this case and the threat to their property and freedom."

If anything, he understates the scope and magnitude of this danger. In addition to affecting citizens of every state, this threat serves as a particularly good example of the connection between our rights -- which the government is supposed to protect -- and our lives.

The Lucases had, as it turns out, depended on developing land for their livelihood, Robert having done so for half a century -- starting in high school, working his way through college, and building a spotless reputation along the way.

In the last 48 years, [Lucas] has developed over 2,000 lots, all by subdividing cutover timber land north of Pascagoula into two- and four-acre home sites with roads, electricity, water wells and septic tanks. He usually owner-financed the lots he sold and carried the loans for people who might not otherwise be able to buy a lot. Most of the housing built on the lots was of modest design.

Lucas never had any trouble with the law, criminal or civil. No lot owner ever sued him. His daughter, Robbie Lucas Wrigley, mother of a young child, followed her father into business and sold lots. They had a good reputation with lot sales to thousands of customers.

Their engineer, M.E. Thompson, 76, designed the septic systems, following Mississippi Health Department guidelines. The project which landed them all in jail is called Big Hill and is located 12 miles north of the coast in Jackson County. The land is 100 feet above sea level and is full of pine. The nearest creek where you could place a canoe is two and a half miles away. [bold added]

Or, more to the point, the Lucases and Thompson, never had trouble with proper, objective law. That changed when environmentalists perverted the law to protect the earth from human beings doing what nature itself requires us to do to survive: alter their environment. In this particular case, wetlands law doesn't just affect the freedom of these three in some minor aspect of their lives (which would still be inexcusable): It endangers their very livelihoods.

Note that the law concerning wetlands is bad enough in that its object -- the violation of man's right to property -- is improper to begin with. This impropriety is compounded a thousandfold, however, by its non-objective nature. As we follow Emmerich's narrative, this will become glaringly obvious.

On what rational basis would one conclude that a pine forest 100 feet above sea level and more than two miles away from even a small creek is a "wetland" and therefore have any reasonable hope of obeying such a law? None, and furthermore, Lucas was going out of his way to abide by the law!

After running afoul of Pansy Maddox, a state functionary in charge of septic permits, Lucas found himself suddenly having to fight tooth and nail to have nearly 100 arbitrarily rescinded septic permits for his Big Hill development reinstated. He won that battle fair and square, only to find that this bureaucrat was perfectly happy to use the apparatus of the federal government to empower her vindictive rage. (It is taking a great deal of self-control on my part to avoid using very filthy language to describe this person.)

Then one day federal officials appeared at Big Hill accompanied by [Mississippi Department of Health's (MDH)] Pansy Maddox. Involved were the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The big guns had arrived.

Shortly thereafter, the Corps informed Lucas that Big Hill may have a wetlands issue and directed him to hire experts to do a wetlands determination of the entire property.

Lucas hired the experts recommended by the Corps, and they drew up maps delineating areas that had wetlands features. The experts didn't determine that these areas were true wetlands, just that the areas warranted further study. The EPA took the study and ran with it, declaring the pine land was "jurisdictional wetlands," thus totally under the control of the EPA.

This is where the enormous irony exists. If the EPA says your land is "wetlands," then it is wetlands. The courts will not, as a matter of law, overrule a "scientific" determination by the EPA. You can own perfectly dry pine land with 100-foot trees and no standing water, but if some low-level EPA staffer declares your land "wetlands," then your land is essentially confiscated. You have no legal recourse. [bold added]

Lucas, considering his predicament and getting "the best legal advice in the state" -- from somoene who is now "a top EPA official", decided to fight in court.

He was demolished by federal officials who had decided to make an example of him in a process that makes my recent adventure in postmodern civics seem like a high school field trip by comparison:

The jurors were led along this fantasy trail by Jeremy Korzenik, senior trial attorney for the Department of Justice's environmental crimes division.

The seven-week trial was presided over by Judge Louis Guirola, a former federal prosecutor appointed to Mississippi's Southern District in 2003. Last year, Guirola led the entire nation in white collar criminal cases. Guirola made news when he hired Dickie Scruggs to represent him in a Katrina lawsuit over damage to his home.

One can imagine that professionals of higher education were either excluded from jury selection or begged off. Few successful people with significant jobs can sacrifice seven weeks of their lives on a trial that should never have taken place.

So you are left with less-educated jurors who are satisfied with the per diem jury duty compensation. These jurors know not to bite the hand that feeds them. They are easily led along by the overwhelming power of the prosecution, which has the entire array of the federal money and bureaucracy behind them. It was a kangaroo court.

...

Seeking ammo for the trial, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office and four environmental agencies began holding meetings in a local gym attended by the Big Hill homeowners. At these meetings, homeowners were told by six believable authorities that they had been defrauded by the Lucases. Despite the federal dog and pony show, the government persuaded only 10 percent of the Big Hill lot owners (36 out of 300) to join in their criminal case against the developer.

The local hearings were laying the groundwork for a federal lynching in the name of saving the environment. It made great PR, exemplified by the boastful press releases sent out immediately after the conviction. The bureaucrats, the prosecutors and the judges all jumped on board this gravy train of political correctness. There was just one small problem. The Lucases were innocent.

They were accused of building on wetlands, but they were never allowed in court to contest the validity of the wetlands designation. How can pine land be wetlands? In fact, when Lucas was selling some timber off the land, the Corps approved the sale stating in its report that "no waterway existed" and "no wetlands had been built" and "no action required." They were accused of not obtaining EPA septic permits. In fact, no such permit has ever been required or given anywhere in the U.S.A. [bold and link added]

Emmerich's list of false charges goes on and on, and he closes by noting how prophet-like our Founding Fathers were:

This is what John Adams and Thomas Jefferson feared -- an out-of-control, out-of-touch, unaccountable federal bureaucracy wreaking havoc on ordinary citizens. Their fears, first conceived 250 years ago, have proven to be remarkably on target.

And what accounts for their remarkable ability to foretell such tyranny? Their understanding that each man owns his own life, and that the proper purpose of the government is to protect the individual. This understanding, if only implicit, was much more common among the general public in their time than it is now. It must become much more common again before we will begin to stop hearing of such atrocities or, worse still, having them visited upon ourselves.

I strongly recommend reading both of Emmerich's columns soon, as his paper seems to remove them from open access after a couple of weeks.

-- CAV

European Cartoonists

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Those who are interested in the future of free speech in Europe might find this article from the July 12, 2008 Wall Street Journal noteworthy. It documents the contrasting responses of Denmark and Holland to cartoonists accused of insulting Islam. Here are a few excerpts:

"Denmark protects its cartoonists. We arrest them," says Geert Wilders, a populist member of the Dutch Parliament...

The contrasting Danish and Dutch responses "show that there is a serious struggle of ideas going on for the future of Europe," says Flemming Rose, a Danish newspaper editor who commissioned the drawings of Muhammad in Jyllands-Posten. At stake, he says, is whether democracy protects the right to offend or embraces religious taboos so that "citizens have a right not to be offended."

As Arts & Letters Daily notes, "The Netherlands once sheltered Jews and other refugees from the Inquisition. Now it runs its own Inquisition..."

Individualism, America, and Ayn Rand

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The following letter appeared in the online edition of the July 13, 2008 Denver Post, with negative reference to individualism and Ayn Rand. Since her name doesn't frequently appear in our local paper, I took this as an opportunity to set the record straight.

Here is the original letter:

It wasn't individualism that settled the West

Re: "The Cowboy Myth," July 6 Perspective article.

There are two problems with Jeffrey Lockwood's support of the Cowboy Myth. First, we are constantly told that it was reality, that cowboys were the essential ingredient in the winning of the West. Truth is, the average cowboy was about as significant as today's parking lot attendant.

Perpetuating the Hollywood/dime fiction image of the cowboy propagates the false belief that Ayn Rand individualism was the historical way and will be the best future way to solve our nation’s problems. Truth is, the sodbusters were the key, the heroes: risking all, sticking determinedly in their forlorn shacks to raise their crops and banding together to raise their barns, build their schools and defend their homes.

The key to our nation's past successes was Americans joining together in common cause, not individualism. Working together will also be the key to our future.

Bill Belew
Boulder, CO

My response was as follows:

America was made by great individuals working under a system which (albeit imperfectly) protected their right to use their rational minds to create value and advance their lives. Where would we be without the likes of Thomas Edison, Westinghouse, and Henry Ford? This was a key insight of Ayn Rand and she deserves tremendous credit for promoting a philosophy that celebrates individual achievement -- the philosophy that underlies the positive and optimistic "can do" American sense of life.

Of course individuals can and should band together voluntarily when it suits their purposes. I have no problem with "working together" with others for mutual benefit as a voluntary arrangement, as many did in the Old West.

However, this notion is too-often corrupted into a vicious morality which preaches that the collective should take precedence over the individual, that individuals should be coerced to help one other, and that therefore we need massive government intrusions into the economy (such as “universal health care”) to automatically provide for everyone’s needs at taxpayer expense.

This approach will destroy the sorts of individuals who made America great, and will eventually destroy America. We need to celebrate and support the individuals who embody the American spirit and work-ethic, not punish them.

Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, CO

The Environmentalist Life

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Sigh:

Dear Miss Manners:

A conflict of values: I have always been committed to the practice of sending handwritten expressions of thanks for kindnesses in an appropriate and timely manner, and have valued receiving the same from others.

However, I am also committed to doing my small part to reduce the impact of greenhouse gases on our precious environment. I recycle, take canvas bags when I shop, receive and pay bills electronically, and send electronic greeting cards to friends. I have canceled all catalogues and magazine subscriptions, carefully managed the use of electricity and gas in my home, and am careful about fuel consumption in my auto.

I find myself feeling guilty when I write a thank-you note, as each note uses resources in the form of both the paper on which it is written and the fuel required to send it from place to place. I would like to replace these notes with similarly appropriate expressions of thanks via e-mail to those of my friends who I know use e-mail. I would value your thoughts on this dilemma.

Wow. Gaia forbid that a person use and transport a wee bit of paper!

Objectivist Party?

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Yesterday, I got the following FaceBook message from Tom Stevens. (I'm reproducing it because it's a form letter from someone wholly unknown to me.) It said:

I am the Objectivist Party Presidential Candidate and we need 9 registered Colorado voters to list as Presidential Electors. There is no obligation but if we do not get said registered voters, we will not be on the ballot.

If you could help by letting us list you, it would be appreciated.

In Liberty,

Dr. Tom Stevens
Presidential Candidate
Objectivist Party

I wrote up a quick reply, then realized that my comments might be of interest to NoodleFood readers. So I put a bit more work into it, so that I could post it here. (Be forewarned, I wrote the comments below before I realized that this guy is a Libertarian. More on that below.) Here's my response:

Tom,

I can't grant your request. While I am a strong advocate of cultural and political activism, I think that attempting to change American culture via a third party is not just ineffective but downright counterproductive.

The problem with American politics today is not that Americans are looking for an Objectivist candidate but the major parties will only run statists. The majority of voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice between left-wing and right-wing statists on Election Day. Objectivists must work to change the culture toward secularism, reason, egoism, and individual rights. Only then can we expect better politicians to mount a credible campaign, let alone win elections.

That cultural change will be felt within the major parties -- so long as Objectivists don't sequester themselves into political irrelevance in their own unelectable political party. If Objectivists (and sympathizers) demand that the major parties court their vote, then political change for the better is possible.

The history of the political influence of the abolitionist movement bears out this analysis. Abolitionists created new political parties, some focused on the single issue of abolition and others broadly pro-liberty. All such parties failed to gather any significant votes; they had no positive impact. If anything, they had a negative impact, in that they siphoned off strong abolitionist voters that the fledgling Republican Party would have otherwise had to woo. Eventually, the Republican Party did adopt abolitionism -- due to effective cultural activism, not those minor abolitionist parties. By uncompromising moral arguments, a small band of committed abolitionists changed American hearts and minds about the evils of slavery in just a few decades. (Brad Thompson discusses this fascinating political history in his excellent lecture course, American Slavery, American Freedom. Hopefully I've remembered it reasonably accurately.)

Today, if the small but growing number of Objectivists and sympathizers gravitate to an Objectivist political party, the Republicans and Democrats could safely ignore us for decades to come, knowing that they've already lost our vote. That's a license for more statism, not less.

Objectivists should follow the same model as the abolitionists: change American hearts and minds, and the politicians will follow. Political advocacy can and should be a large part of those efforts to change the culture, as seen in the activities of the Ayn Rand Institute and Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). Unlike running wholly unelectable candidates for office, that kind of activism works. And that's where Objectivists ought to be focusing their time and efforts.

After writing most of the above, I examined the web site of this proposed Objectivist Party in more detail. In my first look, I'd noticed a strongly anti-libertarian statement in the platform itself, in the form of this quote from Harry Binswanger:

The "libertarians"...plagiarize Ayn Rand's principle that no man may initiate the use of physical force, and treat it as a mystically revealed, out-of-context absolute...In the philosophical battle for a free society, the one crucial connection to be upheld is that between capitalism and reason. The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism; the "libertarians" are tying capitalism to the whim-worshipping subjectivsim and chaos of anarchy. To cooperate with either group is to betray capitalism, reason, and one's own future. (Harry Binswanger: "Q & A Department: Anarchism," TOF, Aug. 1981, 12.)

So, I thought, however counterproductive the endeavor, it didn't seem to be corrupt. That's one reason why I was willing to write such a detailed reply to the request. However, on reading the biographical information on Tom Stevens, the founder and 2008 presidential candidate, it became perfectly clear that he's a Big-L Libertarian in Objectivist clothing. See for yourself:

Dr. [Tom] Stevens is the Founder of the Objectivist Party. He was elected to the Judiciary Committee of the Libertarian Party in 2006 and re-elected in 2008. He served as a New York State Delegate to the Libertarian Party's National Convention in Atlanta in 2004, Portland in 2006, and Denver in 2008. He currently serves as President of the Libertarian Freedom Council, a national organization of students, young professionals and entrepreneurs and also serves as a member of the LPNY State Committee. In the Republican Presidential Primary, he was a supporter of Ron Paul and served as Political Consultant and New York State Coordinator for the Paul For President Coalition.

(I might add that I find other aspects of the biography, particularly the range of college-level courses that he's taught somewhere unspecified "during the past few years," as suspect.)

So that makes clear to me the value of this endeavor so-called "Objectivist Party." Libertarians are not allies in the struggle for liberty. So while I think that my comments above are worthwhile as general points about political and cultural activism, this request was not worth so many electrons.

Cultural Movements: Creating Change

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate's three fantastic lectures on "Cultural Movements: Creating Change" -- given at OCON less than a month ago -- are already available for free in the "Activism" section of the new Ayn Rand Center web site. All three lectures are available in full. (You can navigate to the various parts via the scrolling list that's just below the video box.)

Here's the description from the OCON brochure:

Among the cultural forces in ascendancy over the last few decades are "free" markets and the resulting globalization; environmentalism; and religion. These three lectures examine the rise of global markets, environmentalism and religion in the late-twentieth and early-twenty-first centuries. The lectures address questions such as: What steps did these movements take to gain their success? How were they organized? What did they count on? What do they seem to be planning for the future?

Having examined these movements, Dr. Brook and Dr. Ghate extract what we can learn from them in regard to changing a culture. How can we as a movement organize and work most effectively to bring about the kind of world Ayn Rand's philosophy equips us to create?

Roughly one lecture will be devoted to globalization, one to environmentalism and religion, and one to strategies for the present and future.

Did I mention that these fantastic lectures are free? Probably, but it's worth repeating.

If you're interested in working to change the culture for the better -- rather than just sitting on your ass, whining and complaining while it goes to hell -- then I strongly recommend these lectures. Go watch them now.

Dr. Peikoff on iTunes

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Leonard Peikoff's wonderful podcasts are now available via subscription from iTunes, thanks to some help from Arthur Lechtholz-Zey, a regular guest on the TalkObjectivism podcast.

Quick Roundup 348

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

HR 676 Update

I now know of at least four people who have written letters to the editor to the Houston Chronicle that were critical of the recent meeting about socialized medicine I described last week. Not only did Houston's only newspaper completely fail to cover the event, it has published, to my knowledge, only one letter (by Alex Redgrill) about HR 676, and it was in support. That writer, too, wondered why the "hearing" got no coverage.

That's too bad, because Sylvia Bokor submitted a letter that would serve to boil my lengthy account down to its essentials, most notably the fact that this "hearing" wasn't really one at all.

A "congressional hearing" is meant to find out what citizens think about a given subject. But the July 18 meeting was no hearing. It was a carefully orchestrated power-play presided over by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Congressman John Conyers, Jr., to force socialized medicine down citizens' throats. [bold added]

Read the whole thing, and be glad that newspapers aren't the only way to get news. As Redgrill put it, "I hope that the Chronicle will cover future debates and the cycle of HR 676 in Congress with accuracy and vigor. Our democracy [sic] can survive with nothing less."

Indeed.

Sponsor John Conyers is now trying to add his bill to the Democratic platform. In the meantime, another Democrat is pitching a proposal that will appeal "to conservatives because it preserves the veneer of a 'marketplace' while introducing still more government controls," as Paul Hsieh puts it at We Stand FIRM.

The government did it.

That's the title of Yaron Brook's latest in Forbes, in which he discusses the financial perils of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

For too long, the refrain has gone, Congress and the administration have been asleep at the wheel when they should have been steering the economy by expanding government control over the housing and financial markets. Economist Paul Krugman slams the administration's "free-market ideology"; he urges Bush to "reverse course now" and "seek expanded regulation."

All this overlooks a crucial fact: There has been no free market in housing or finance. Government has long exercised massive control over the housing and financial markets--including its creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which have now amassed $5 trillion in liabilities)--leading to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today. [bold added, parenthetical links dropped]

Brook also indicates how a truly free market could have averted this crisis. (HT: Myrhaf)

Another drop in the bucket ...

... of reasons not to support McCain:

"Wall Street is the villain in the things that happened in the subprime lending crisis and other areas where investigations and possible prosecution is going on," McCain said during a taped appearance on ABC's This Week program.

The Arizona Republican, who has wrapped up his party's presidential nomination, said he supports the housing bill passed by Congress yesterday to stem foreclosures and aid Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the largest U.S. mortgage-finance companies, even though it may cost taxpayers as much as $25 billion.

...

"We should eliminate the pay and bonuses that these people rake in" McCain said. [format edits, bold added]

Yeah. Let's finish the job of decoupling rational effort from reward! And if you don't know what I mean, read the Brooks piece mentioned above.

If this is going to be the man in the bully pulpit for what most people see as the pro-capitalist political party, we're better off having an open socialist in office so such foolishness gets the label it deserves.

Too Cuil to Google?

Via Matt Drudge, I learned of a new search engine that some former Google employees recently launched. Of course, I immediately googled myself -- I mean, looked for myself with Cuil. It does pass the crucial test of providing results for searches of "Gus Van Horn", so I've taken a mental note to try this the next time I come up empty with Google. If Cuil really is better, that's the time to try it, right?

I am otherwise lukewarm. The search results are presented in a multi-columnar format cluttered with images not necessarily found on the pages. I find that distracting. Just give me a list free of cognitive clutter, please.

And while I'm on the subject of search engines, a commenter recently put in a plug for GoodSearch. The links to GoodSearch I have on my sidebar and here are set up to donate to the Ayn Rand Institute each time they're used.

In Other Words, TWO Debates

Glenn Reynolds accidentally comes very close to nailing what's wrong with the global warming debate:

I dunno. But maybe we should figure this out before we turn our economy upside down?

Were we -- properly -- discussing the issues of whether there is warming and whether the government ought to do anything about it, the scientists would be discussing whether the climate is warming and why, and the government would enter the picture at all only if overwhelming evidence came to light that identifiable individuals were demonstrably harming others by their actions. And the level of harm would have to be on a level comparable to, say, poisoning a well through negligently dumping poison. And the remedies would not involve massive government violations of individual rights, such as those that will, "turn our economy upside down".

In short, this scientific debate should not even be a blip on the political radar.

Instead, since everyone agrees that the government exists to issue orders rather than protect our freedom to act on our own judgement, we're on the threshold of self-imposed economic ruin, not to mention tyranny.

-- CAV

Pathetic Pickens Plan

By Paula Hall from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

T. Boone Pickens is all over the airwaves and internet with his "Pickens Plan" to develop wind power (can anyone say "public relations campaign?). You'd think that a billionaire couldn't get that way without knowing some basic things about economics, but you'd never know it by reading the Pickens Plan. Maybe Pickens is more mixed-economy pull-peddler than straight-up capitalist and that's how he made his bucks. Can't say I know too much about him, he's never impinged on my consciousness before the Pickens Plan hit the airwaves. Hope I forget about him soon.

In essence, the main reason we're supposed to give the Pickens Plan the time of day is because: buying foreign oil is a massive "transfer of wealth" that will impoverish and endanger us. Featured prominently in his TV and web messaging is his complaint that the U.S. is going to spend $700 billion on foriegn oil this year.

To address point-by-point the third-rate argumentation and simplistic reasoning of the Pickens Plan would be shooting fish in a barrel and I'm not going to bother. His method is to pander to the xenophobia, economic ignorance, and intellectual laziness in the worst of his audience. I do, however, want to take a moment to blow off some steam about the economic argument he makes, which I find most offensive coming from a freaking billionaire.

Here's the pitch on the Pickens Plan website:

It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security. It touches every part of our daily lives and ties our hands as a nation and a people.

The addiction has worsened for decades and now it's reached a point of crisis.

In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil. Today it's nearly 70% and growing.

As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

Alex Epstein at ARI has a great column on "oil addiction" and what our real national security issues are, so I'll let him handle that one. I want to give T. Boone a little lesson in Econ 101 to address this "transfer of wealth" nonsense he's got his panties in a bunch over.

Have you ever heard of division of labor, Mr. Billionaire Pickens? You know, that neat little arrangement where people produce what they're best at producing, and then trade their goodies with each other? That economic principle that makes possible our elevated standard of living? That mode of production the opposite of which is a life of squalor on a self-sufficient farm? No? Well, here's a little tutorial. We buy foreign oil because foreigners produce it more cheaply than we can domestically. And we buy it with the money we earn by producing the things we can most cheaply and efficiently produce. Now, we can get into the weeds over why this is the case, but as long as it's the case, it's completely rational to buy foreign oil. The consequences of going through a withdrawal from this "addiction" would be: getting on an express train to a 19th century standard of living. (A train fueled with coal, by the way.) Capice?

Oh, and can I offer you a little help finding that $700 billion you're acting like we've irretrievably lost? Here's a hint: we actually bought a product with that $700 billion, it's called oil. I suppose that if it were better for us, we could buy the oil and then turn right around and sell it again -- then we'd get our $700 billion back and all would be well, eh? Of course, then there'd be the little detail that we wouldn't be able to get to work in the morning, or fly our airplanes, or power our factories . . . but we'd have that $700 billion. For what it would be worth, under those circumstances.

Bottom line here, T. Boone -- wealth isn't money, wealth is what you buy with money. Wealth directly supports our lives, but money is just paper. Ever try to eat money, or get your car to run on the paper money is made of? Even if money were gold coins, there is literally nothing in gold that can keep body and soul together. Unless those foreigners themselves turn around and buy some actual products with their money, the wealth transfer will all be from the foreigners to us -- we'll have oil, and they'll have a bunch of paper. And who knows? Maybe those foreigners will use that $700 billion to buy from the United States some of that wealth they need to survive. Ya think? (Sheesh.)

Pickens is pushing wind power as an alternative. I'll leave it to someone else to address the technical details of why it's not feasible. Why? Because I don't have to address those details. If wind power were a viable alternative, potentially a real value in our real every day lives, you can bet that selfish, profit-seeking entrepreneurs would have been all over it by now, confident that people would buy it. And they'd put the research dollars into it -- look at the hundreds of millions drug companies will spend developing a drug, confident of future sales. Maybe one day wind power will be a viable alternative, but at present it just isn't a money-making enterprise, or T. Boone wouldn't have any trouble privately raising the money needed to develop it.

So you know what? I don't think the Pickens Plan is a plan to "save America." I think it's a plan to extort $1.2 trillion tax dollars from hard-working American citizens to fund schemes T. Boone can't persuade people to voluntarily support, by scaring them half to death with horror stories of impoverishment at the hands of evil foreigners.

Recap #2

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This week on Politics without God:

• Monday, July 21, 2008: GOP Platform Website by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Tuesday, July 22, 2008: Why The Republicans Have Lost My Vote by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Wednesday, July 23, 2008: Religious Freedom in the Military by Diana Hsieh
  
• Thursday, July 24, 2008: Feds Broaden Definition of Abortion by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Friday, July 25, 2008: Bad News from South Dakota by Diana Hsieh

This week on We Stand FIRM:

• Monday, July 21, 2008: Medicare's "Free Market" Facade by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Tuesday, July 22, 2008: Socialists in Houston by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Wednesday, July 23, 2008: Hsieh LTE in USA Today by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Thursday, July 24, 2008: Concierge Medicine by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Friday, July 25, 2008: Bokor on the Houston Meeting by Paul Hsieh, MD

NPV vs. Your Vote

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

Mike recently discussed the latest effort to abolish the Electoral College, noting among other things that John F. Kennedy saved it from oblivion at the hands of the Republicans half a century ago. He excerpts the following from Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe:

In 1956, a Republican proposal to abolish the Electoral College was defeated after a vigorous defense by Sen. John F. Kennedy, who declared that "direct election would break down the federal system under which most states entered the union, which provides a system of checks and balances to ensure that no area or group shall obtain too much power."

Nearly four years ago, I considered the question of whether the Electoral College still serves a useful role, after my wife and I talked about it.

Given that electors usually rubber stamp the popular election results of their respective states, this is a fair question. What I found was that a mathematician by the name of Alan Natapoff actually published a mathematical proof that a system of corralling votes into districts (as the Electoral College does) serves -- contrary to popular misconception -- to preserve the power of the individual vote.

An article about the proof, "Math against Tyranny", puts the gist of it into laymen's terms in this way:

The same logic that governs our electoral system, [Natapoff] saw, also applies to many sports--which Americans do, intuitively, understand. In baseball's World Series, for example, the team that scores the most runs overall is like a candidate who gets the most votes. But to become champion, that team must win the most games.

...

Runs must be grouped in a way that wins games, just as popular votes must be grouped in a way that wins states. The Yankees won three blowouts (16-3, 10-0, 12-0), but they couldn’t come up with the runs they needed in the other four games, which were close. "And that’s exactly how Cleveland lost the series of 1888," Natapoff continues. "Grover Cleveland. He lost the five largest states by a close margin, though he carried Texas, which was a thinly populated state then, by a large margin. So he scored more runs, but he lost the five biggies." And that was fair, too. In sports, we accept that a true champion should be more consistent than the 1960 Yankees. A champion should be able to win at least some of the tough, close contests by every means available--bunting, stealing, brilliant pitching, dazzling plays in the field--and not just smack home runs against second-best pitchers. A presidential candidate worthy of office, by the same logic, should have broad appeal across the whole nation, and not just play strongly on a single issue to isolated blocs of voters.

In the sense that it protects our ability to cast effective votes, then, the Electoral College is valuable and worth preserving. But, as the saying goes, "A republic, if you can keep it." As valuable as the Electoral College and many of our other institutions of government are, they cannot guarantee that we will even have a choice. That is a function of what the broader culture is looking for in a President, as reflected by who gets nominated.

Four years ago, I said, "We are at war and the Electoral College might some day save us from choosing a bad commander-in-chief." Too late for that this time, I am afraid. To ensure better choices in the future, we who value individual rights must work to change the culture.

We should fight to preserve the Electoral College, yes. But we must also fight the cultural trends of which such efforts as National Popular Vote are a symptom.

-- CAV

Two From Obama

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Let's look at two rhetorical products of Barack Obama, his initial response to 9/11 and his speech given yesterday, "A World That Stands As One." Like everything Barack says until he flip-flops for political expedience, these two effusions are leftist cliche.

The 9/11 response was revealed in a long piece on Obama in the New Yorker -- the one that goes with the satirical cover in which Obama failed to see the humor. Here it is in full:

Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction.

We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair.

We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.

This response is the worst possible one that any serious person could have at that time. Every point he makes is wrong, and more, it is deeply stupid. No one but the postmodernist philosopher Jacques Derrida could more misunderstand 9/11 than Barack Obama.

First, to make a minor point that illustrates my major point, 9/11 was not a tragedy. You can call cancer, car accidents and earthquakes tragedies, but a terrorist plot that kills thousands is an atrocity. To call it a tragedy takes focus off of the injustice and puts it on the suffering; it gives the terrorists a break, just as the rest of Obama's statement does. And of course the focus on suffering fits the altruist view of a world in which all must sacrifice to all and self-reliance is a myth.

The killers of 9/11 did not lack empathy for their victims. After all, they killed themselves too, and surely they empathize with their own selves. They were driven by an ideology, Islamism. They want to destroy the non-Islamic world and replace it with a global caliphate and Sharia law. They are at war with us.

Obama bends over backward to make excuses for the killers, but has stern words for the victims (America). Despite our "rage," we must not respond with all-out war, but with multiculturalist understanding of the other and welfare state handouts for the poor around the world. Our enemies could hardly expect a better response from an American politician: not only does he advocate appeasement, but maybe they can get some of the hand-out money Obama wants to throw at the world. Stupid Americans! Not only do they long to be wiped out, but they will pay their killers to do it!

****

John F. Kennedy went to Berlin when it was a divided city at the height of the Cold War to give a speech in which he said "Ich bin ein Berliner." Ronald Reagan went to Berlin when it was still a divided city to give a speech in which he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Barack Obama went to Berlin yesterday to give a speech in which he called himself "a fellow citizen of the world."

Kennedy and Reagan went to Berlin to reaffirm America's commitment to resisting the spread of tyranny. Obama went to Berlin to speak because Kennedy and Reagan made it a prestigious thing to do.

Obama's speech, vague and a little flat as it was, essentially makes a "one world" argument of the altruist-collectivist left. Because modern communications bring the world closer together and because of the threat of global warming, we must all sacrifice for the biggest collective, the world.

At the risk of being called a McCarthyist, I must note that the ideal of transcending nationalism was also shared by the communists. The USSR's national anthem was the "Internationale."

Obama's speech has nothing in it about individual rights, but much about individual sacrifice. The communists whom Kennedy and Reagan opposed could find nothing to disagree with in Obama's words. They too believe the individual has a duty to sacrifice for the world.

Unfortunately for Obama's one world vision, you cannot get rid of the state. If you don't have nations directing all this sacrifice that so inspires Obama, then you'll have one big socialist state ordering everyone about. Either way, the prospects for freedom are bad, but with individual states there is a chance that some states such as America will be somewhat free and oppose the outright dictatorships.

Does Obama understand this, and is he cynically mouthing this one world ideal in his quest for power? Or does he naively believe what he says? My money is on the latter. I think he has been fed leftist bromides since he was a red diaper baby and he has never questioned what he has been taught. As religionists pass their mysticism and conventional morality on to passive, unthinking children, so leftists pass their worship of the state on to the same type of mind.

Obama manages to blame America in this speech for unspecified wrongs:

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

He apparently thinks these statements are self-evident and uncontroversial, as he gives no examples of what he is saying. It seems remarkable to me that a man running for President would go overseas and criticize America without fear that Americans, the only people who can vote for him, might object. If he is willing to say this, he cannot be trusted to fight for America's national self-interest in a hostile world.

The Berlin speech has taken a lot of criticism, so I'll leave it at that. Obama continues to speak in such gaseous generalities that one can find things on which to comment only by examining the logical implications of his words. But this is common among American politicians, who expect their dumbed down audience not to think critically, but merely to soak in the emotional vibes of what their leaders say.

The Kennedy and Reagan speeches in Berlin became defining moments of their Presidencies. Obama's speech should become known as the moment America had second thoughts about Obama and asked, "Is that all there is?" -- but don't count on it.

Quick Roundup 347

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

David Allen Speaks to Google

I'm posting this here in part to remind myself to finish watching this video of personal productivity guru David Allen speaking to some Google employees. It is about 45 minutes long.


From what I have seen of it so far, it is certainly going to live up to Craig Ceely's assessment as a "great talk".

Medved Going Full Circle?

When I was in college back in the late eighties, the conservative movement was just beginning to break the left's stranglehold on politics and academia. One thing I recall was how common it used to be for leftists to attempt to marginalize conservatives by various smears, including implying that, like John Birchers, they were all nutty conspiracy theorists.

Now conservatism is somewhat entrenched and, amusingly in a way, many leftists will shamelessly spout conspiracy theories. And now -- if I read this Michael Medved column correctly -- some conservatives are attempting to marginalize their ideological opponents by painting them as conspiracy theorists!

I am not a libertarian, but I am often confused with one by people like Medved. Note that he lumps Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney and Libertarian Bob Barr together, and places them in a long line of "fringe parties and paranoia", "usually blam[ing] their own lack of power or influence on the diabolical plots of some secretive group or another." He then discusses a real example of such, the anti-Masonic Party, at great length.

Not to defend libertarianism or to deny that Barr and McKinney don't have some important similarities, but....

There are quite a few good reasons for people interested in political change not to form political parties (among them being that doing so is a sure path to political self-marginalization), and those are compounded for libertarians by their own foolhardy "big tent" approach. But Medved isn't addressing any of this, nor does he address whatever issue he might have with "libertarians". He just smears them (and people like me) and hides the dishonesty behind an interesting bit of American history.

What he is also hiding, like the leftists before him, is an inability to effectively answer some difference of opinion he has with his opponents.

He should know. He served the drinks.

Myrhaf thought the same thing I did upon hearing that Bush recently said "Wall Street got drunk," but he blogged it first!

So if Wall Street got drunk, it's because the Bush administration kept serving drinks on the house -- long after closing time.

Very good post. Read it all. I am especially envious of the following zinger: "[Bush] just speaks, like his favorite political philosopher, in woozy metaphors that can mean anything."

Jesus!

A Must-Read at Amazon!

Rational Jenn posted about it a few days ago, but if you haven't read the review she mentioned then, go there post haste and read it. I laughed out loud at the end.

-- CAV

Religious Right in Colorado Must Drink Lots of Caffeine

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The religious right in Colorado is at it again, and they just won't stop! I have decided to call them, "The Colorado Coalition for a Talibanesque America."

A religious anti-abortion Colorado group already got a ballot initiative that would grant legal rights to a fertilized egg--which of course is an open attack on reason and liberty.

Now a local church is going for a ballot initiative to force schools to provide 5 minutes of meditation each day. This is nothing more than a naked attempt to get prayer in the schools, and they darn well know it.

These groups are not ignorant of our constitutional right to worship as we choose. But it isn't good enough for them to practice their religion and respect the right of others to do the same.

Their goal is nothing less than to impose upon all Americans a society legally based on religious-right Christian morals. If you don't believe me, just read their websites.

Our precious freedoms in America are based on secular principles of reason and reality, not on mystical ideas like those defining the repressive, backward and utterly irrational Sharia laws of Islamic societies. And we certainly can't forget the centuries of stagnation and suffering under the tyranny of the power-lusting Catholic Church.

The separation of church and state protects churches from being overtaken by the state, and protects our society from being overtaken by the church.

But more than that, it's a principle that upholds as the moral foundation for society not ghostly revelations by control freaks wearing goofy hats, but the facts of human nature and our requirements for thriving as civilized and rational beings.

The religious right groups must be stopped before they've had that second pot of coffee. In each of our states where these initiatives are happening, we must not sign their petitions. And we must soundly defeat their initiatives at the ballot box. We must write letters to the editor and to our legislators saying, "No more!"

If we don't defeat the religious right by proudly reclaiming America as a secular society, we will have the church in our schools, in our doctors' offices, in our bedrooms, in public buildings, in parks, at work: we will have the church in our lives everywhere.

If we don't stop the religious right from hijacking the moral foundation of our society, we will never be able to turn back.

The Mortgage Mess

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The July 18, 2008 issue of Forbes has a good analysis by Yaron Brook of the home mortgage mess and how the government created the crisis in the first place:

The financial peril of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--the government-sponsored, government-regulated mortgage giants regarded as instrumental in solving the nation's mortgage market problems--has one benefit. It should help expose the lie that today's financial problems are the result of an insufficiently regulated market.

And Amit Ghate points towards good retrospective in the July 14, 2008 Wall Street Journal detailing years of corruption and ineptitude in those two quasi-governmental agencies.

Articles like these rebut the usual claims that villainous lenders are to blame, as if they would somehow benefit from defaulting clients.

John Lewis in Israel

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

On Principles in Practice, John Lewis blogs about his recent trip to Israel. It begins:

I just returned from a speaking engagement at Tel Aviv University (pictures from the trip are on my website). My honorarium was four days of sight-seeing in Tel Aviv, Abu Gosh, Jerusalem, En Gedi and Masada, and a series of meetings with writers, policy analysts, academics and writers. I came back with one overriding conclusion, which stands for me stronger than it did before my trip: Israel stands at the front-line of the war between civilization and barbarism. As Eric Hoffer wrote over forty years ago, "as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us all." ("Israel's Peculiar Position," LA Times 5/26/68)

It's very illuminating. Read the whole thing -- and be sure to check out John's remarkable pictures.

You can also listen to the first ten minutes of the lecture, courtesy of Boaz Arad.



(Most of Boaz's videos are in Hebrew, but I did notice that he has one by Yaron Brook. If you like these videos, remember to rate them highly!)

More Brilliance From Bush

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Bush speaks on the economy:

Explaining the current economic downturn to a closed-door fundraiser last week, President Bush said, "Wall Street got drunk."

"There's no question about it," Bush said. "Wall Street got drunk, that's one of the reasons I asked you to turn off the TV cameras. It got drunk and now it's got a hangover. The question is how long will it sober up and not try to do all these fancy financial instruments."

Huh? What does this mean? "Wall Street got drunk" is a metaphor. So what exactly is this man saying? Who knows? Does he know? I doubt it.

What exactly is wrong with "fancy financial instruments"?

The implication of Bush's statement, which he is too stupid to understand, is that the market failed because there's just something wrong with capitalism. And the logical implication from there is that we need more government regulation of Wall Street. No, of course Bush didn't say this; he never thinks out the logical implications of his statements. He just speaks, like his favorite political philosopher, in woozy metaphors that can mean anything.

Bush's statement indicates that he has learned nothing in his Presidency. He does not understand what a disaster it has been.

As Mises and the Austrian economists taught us, boom and bust cycles result from distortions in the economy caused by government intervention. When government printing presses create credit expansion, eventually some bad things will happen. But Bush doesn't give a damn about that because oversaw a boom as he sent inflation through the roof to fund his Presidency -- and the next guy will have to worry about the bust.

So if Wall Street got drunk, it's because the Bush administration kept serving drinks on the house -- long after closing time.

For Bush to criticize Wall Street is like, to use another analogy, a pusher pointing to a bunch of addicts and saying, "Look at those junkies. Disgusting! Why don't they live a clean life?"

What American freedom we still have has survived much in the last two centuries, but I don't think it can survive another moron in the White House.

George W. Bush, Man of Steel

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Boortz castigates Obama for his arrogance:

After General Petraeus tells Obama that a timetable for withdrawal would be wrong – that withdrawal should be based on conditions and results, not a calendar. So what does Our Savior do after his meeting? Well, he basically says that Petraeus is wrong and he is right and that as commander in chief a timetable it will be.

All well and good, but for one little snag -- Bush agrees with Obama, not Petraeus!

U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have agreed on "a general time horizon," not an "arbitrary timetable" for a drawdown of U.S. forces, the White House said Friday.

Now, is a "general time horizon" any more based on conditions and results than an "arbitrary timetable"? They are both deadlines set in advance of any future conditions and results, but "general time horizon" allows Bush to pretend his timetable is not a timetable.

As John LeBoutillier notes, Bush also caved on negotiating with Iran unless they cease trying to build nuclear weapons, thus leaving McCain out on a limb all by himself:

They sent the Under Secretary of State, William Burns, to join the ongoing talks the EU was having with Iran. This sudden change of policy - granted, Secretary Burns was instructed to ‘listen’ and not to say anything - has sent shock waves throughout the foreign policy community. (At meetings like this there is much off-the-record conversation in hallways and back-rooms; this is where real breakthroughs happen - and where real communication takes place. Undoubtedly Burns had private face-to-face talks with Iran.) It is viewed as a total reversal by a lame-duck Bush White House which is now trying to patch up a badly damaged legacy.

Obama has for over a year advocated a dialogue with Tehran.

On the heels of this shocker came another: the Bush White House again reversing itself and agreeing to something called - and it sounds utterly Clintonian - ‘Time Horizons’ with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. Let’s face it, these Time Horizons are the very same Time Lines that Bush - and McCain - have been blasting for years. But Bush has now just - like Bill Clinton - used semantics to flip his previous position. Bush is now on the same page as Obama who, for years, has advocated a timetable of withdrawal.

So we are left wondering once again: is there a dime's worth of difference between the two parties?

Hsieh LTE in USA Today

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The July 23, 2008 edition of USA Today has printed my LTE critical of mandatory insurance, including my affiliation with FIRM:

Reform health care

Paul Hsieh, M.D., Co-founder, Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine - Sedalia, Colo.

Mandatory insurance does not solve our underlying health care problem, which is government interference in the free market. This approach has already been tried in Massachusetts and has led to long waits, skyrocketing costs and frustrated patients ("Individual health policies leave many in the lurch," Cover story, News, Thursday).

Instead of government-imposed "universal health care," America needs free market health reforms -- reforms such as eliminating mandatory insurance benefits, repealing laws that forbid purchasing health insurance across state lines, and allowing individuals to use health savings accounts for routine expenses and low cost, catastrophic-only insurance for major expenses.

Such reforms would respect individual rights, allow patients to choose from the best offerings from all 50 states, lower costs and make health insurance available to many who currently cannot afford it.

You can post comments in response to this letter.

Five Great American Paintings (Part IV)

By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This installment discusses the fourth of five paintings that I consider to be among American painter Norman Rockwell's greatest artistic achievements.

The Problem We All Live With (1964)





Norman Rockwell is most clearly identified with 20th century American sentimentality; that is, with the creation and alleged over-romanticizing of the American mythos. This identification is intended as an indictment, for while better-respected artists were busy depicting the universe as expressed through the sundry nuances of multi-color ink-blots, Rockwell dedicated his brush to representing real Americans (along with their quintessential spirit). One such American was six-year-old Ruby Nell Bridges on November 14, 1960, the first day black children in New Orleans would go to school with white children. Yet far from sentimental, Rockwell juxtaposes the beauty and innocence of this young child against the savage racism that animated large swaths of the American public at that time.

Rockwell's painting depicts a young black girl, with the viewer looking at the girl at her eye level as if they were a child themselves. The girl wears a pristine white dress with white socks and sneakers; this is an outfit one often sees children wearing to Sunday religious services and indicates her finest attire. In her left hand the girl holds a ruler, pencils and two books; she carries the tools of a young student. She is surrounded by four white men in business suits; their anonymous faces are not shown to the viewer. The men wear badges of office on their coats and yellow armbands that indicate that they are federal marshals and they march together in lockstep and with fists firmly clenched; the men expect and are ready for a physical fight.

The reason for the men's aggressive posture is made clear when one looks upon the wall presented in the background. Scrawled out in paint is an ugly racial epitaph intended to communicate the writer's view of the alleged sub-human status of the members of the child's race. A splattered tomato sits on the pavement, its fresh ejecta dribbles down the wall, the trace of its rays indicating that these ejecta were mere inches away from sullying the girl's immaculate dress. Drawing the viewer into the drama of the scene, the tomato lies on the ground in a way that makes it seem that it was thrown over the viewer's own shoulder; Rockwell does not permit the viewer to escape as a mere passive observer, but makes him an active participant in the scene depicted in his painting.

Yet in perhaps the most striking aspect of Rockwell's canvas, the girl does not seem to notice the rage that surrounds her; instead, she innocently pantomimes the marshals, her small hands clenched as theirs are and her tiny feet in step with their own. Furthermore, while the men guard the girl, they make no emotional contact with her; they do not hold her hand or offer any gesture of warmth or compassion. They protect her from physical assault, but on every other level, the girl stands alone and is as exposed as her white dress against the angry invective of the mob. Yet though it all, she remains pure; her youthful innocence remains intact.

I have yet to encounter any parallel to this work in American art. Rockwell assembles a host of contrasts, from the innocence of the young girl, to the tomato-splattered wall, to the grim determination of the marshals to defend the girl, to their seeming emotional indifference to her plight and he presents them for us to reconcile. Yet there is no easy reconciliation; such is the nature of the problem we all live with. What Rockwell makes clear to his viewers are the stakes of this conflict; one must truly be depraved not to feel empathy for the girl and contempt for those who would act with such irrationality and malice against her. The cornerstone of their creed was that by nature, blacks were separate and beneath whites, yet Rockwell shows us a young girl thrust into a maelstrom with her humanity plainly in view and for all to see. The world seethes angrily around her, yet she remains a guiltless girl, a young scholar on the first day of classes.

As I alluded to earlier, Ruby Nell Bridges, the first black child to attend William Frantz Elementary School in New Orleans and the first black child to attend an all-white school in the South, is a real person. Now a mother and speaker on the history of the era that she as a sex-year-old child helped to pioneer, she is able to share her story and its implications in her own voice. Nevertheless, the voice that Norman Rockwell was able to give her and others like her though his painting continues to inform us to this day. At root, it is a message of humanity in the face of adversity and contempt, and it is a message that deserves to be told.

Previous installments:
Part I: The Scoutmaster
Part II: The Homecoming Marine
Part III: Lincoln the Railsplitter

Next installment: Freedom of Speech

Memo to GOP: Give us a choice.

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

I agree with Paul Hsieh, who writes more generally and in more depth at Noodlefood about an issue I ran across here just yesterday as I went through some comments to my recent post on a shady "single payer" socialized medicine meeting held recently here in Houston. That issue is why the Republican Party does not deserve the support of individuals who understand the proper role of government.

The Coming Merger of Religion and Environmentalism

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

At the OCON 2008 conference, one of the predictions made by Dr. Yaron Brook and Dr. Onkar Ghate was the coming convergence of religion and environmentalism in the US.

This is been mentioned in news stories in the past, and further evidence of this can be found in this recent story from the July 18, 2008 New York Times:

Pope Warns on Environment

Pope Benedict XVI used his first major address at the Roman Catholic Church's youth festival here [Sydney, Australia] on Thursday to warn that the world was being scarred and its natural resources used up by humanity's "insatiable consumption."

In a broad criticism of consumer culture, before a crowd of more than 140,000, Pope Benedict reinforced the Vatican's growing concern with protecting the environment, a theme he has addressed before.

Although environmentalism and religion would seem to be fairly disparate ideologies, Drs. Brook and Ghate point out that the two could easily unite in an "unholy marriage" in which each strengthens the other.

For instance, many of the radical environmentalists believe they have failed in their attempts to change the culture. Although they had hoped that their ideas would cause Americans to renounce industrial society, this simply hasn't happened. Americans are not willing to sacrifice their current level of material prosperty for a nebulous ecological concept such as "Gaia". On the other hand, they might be willing to renounce material prosperity if their religion preaches that such material prosperity is immoral. And some radical environmentalists are starting to recognize this fact.

Similarly, many of the younger religionists are moving beyond a concern with traditional "social conservative" issues (such as abortion and gay marriage) and onto causes more typically associated with the secular left, such as "economic justice" and environmentalism. They frame environmentalism in terms of "stewardship" over God's creation (the Earth).

Religion also thrives on guilt. If people start to feel guilty for productive activities in the material world necessary for physical survival, then religion could gain much more power over the human spirit. Hence, there is a strong possibility of a synergy between environmentalism and religion, especially in the younger generation.

As Brook and Ghate note, what unites the environmentalists and religionists is the "don't move" approach. The environmentalists favor a "don't move" approach towards the material world. They want mankind to maintain a static relationship relative to the natural world. Any kind of change made to improve man's lot is viewed as disrupting this desirable "harmony" and therefore wrong.

Similarly, the religionists advocate a "don't move" approach towards man's mind. Obedience to authority is preferred over an independent mind that asks questions and is willing to challenge authority.

A union of religion and environmentalism could therefore form a powerful ideology which preaches that your very existence is a sin and that you should therefore feel guilty for merely wanting to live.

Fortunately, most Americans do not feel that way, at least not yet. But if this ideology ever gains a foothold in the American psyche, then we will be in deep trouble. Such an ideology would kill the innovative American spirit that has created computers, antibiotics, and factories, bring material progress to a halt, and return us to the horrors of a medieval existence, where life was "nasty, brutish, and short".

Hence, this is why it's important for humans to explicitly recognize that it's morally proper to want to live, that it's right to exercise our minds in order to better our lives, and that it's right to utilize natural resources according to our rational judgment for human benefit.

And this is why I'm proud to wear my Objective Standard t-shirt that reads, "Exploit the Earth Or Die". (Only $19.95!)

Why The Republicans Have Lost My Vote

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Over the past few days, I've sent letters to multiple county and state officials of the Colorado Republican Party, asking for them to support a strict separation of church and state. I wanted to let them know that their alliance with the Religious Right was costing them votes from former supporters such as myself.

Given that I believe that the Republicans will lose in 2008 here in the "purple" swing state of Colorado, I believe that it's important that they hear that particular message now (before the election) and later (after the election) -- specifically, that they lost because they were too religious.

In particular, I don't want the only message they receive coming from the evangelical Christians telling them that they lost because they were not religious enough.

Some analysts such as Ryan Sager (author of The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party) have said that Colorado will be "Ground Zero" in the battle over the future of the Republican Party. Sager also believes that the Republicans will lose in Colorado if they continue to embrace the religionists. As they should.

The relevant excerpt from my most recent letter is below. Although I don't think I will necessarily change the minds any of the current local party leaders, it's still important for them to know that there are people who oppose them mixing religion with politics. I also wanted to articulate a positive vision of America that I do support, one which should resonate with the better Republicans:

...My parents came to America over 40 years ago as legal immigrants from Taiwan. They had very little money, but they came to America because they wanted to make a better life for themselves. Over the years, they worked hard, lived frugally, saved enough money to send two sons to college and medical school, and are now happily and comfortably retired in Los Angeles. From them, I learned a deep appreciation for America as the "land of opportunity". America is a beacon of hope to millions of people around the world precisely because it has a system of government which allows honest, hard-working people such as my parents to thrive and prosper. Our system of government is a testament to the genius of the Founding Fathers, who recognized that the proper function of government is protect individual rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Consequently, I don't believe that one should ground principles of government in faith. Instead, they can and should be grounded in observable objective facts about human nature -- specifically our need to use our minds to think and live. Man's essential nature requires that he uses his reasoning mind to create the values necessary for sustaining his life. Hence, the basic purpose of a government is to protect a man's right to produce and to voluntarily trade with others for the products of their thought and labor. Protecting individual rights means protecting men from those who would use force to predate on others -- i.e., protecting Americans from external enemies who would wage war on us as well as from internal criminals who would use force to steal, murder, commit rape, etc. But apart from that, the government should leave honest people alone - which is why our government properly protects our right to free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the rights of property and contract, and the right to worship freely.

In particular, a person's religious faith should not enter into issues of government. Instead, the government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the influence of the Religious Right on the Republican Party to be so dangerous. If someone chooses not to get an abortion for reasons of personal faith, then I completely respect her right to live by her beliefs. But she should not impose her particular religious stance on others. Other women must have the right to decide that deeply personal issue for themselves. The Religious Right's goal to outlaw abortions would violate that important right, and sacrifice the lives of actual women for clumps of cells that are only potential (but not yet actual) human beings, based on a religious dogma. As a physician, I find that position abhorrent and deeply anti-life.

The Religious Right's positions on other issues, such as banning stem cell research and same sex marriage are similarly troubling because it advocates using the power of the government to interfere with individual rights. I already see enough of that kind of harmful nonsense from the Democrats.

Hence, I think the Republican Party stands at an important crossroads. The Republican Party could choose to follow the principles of the American Founding Fathers and promote a limited government that protects individual rights but otherwise leaves people alone to live their lives. In that case, I would happily suppport it. Separation of church and state is a natural (and essential) consequence of that approach. Or the Republican Party could choose instead to embrace the Religious Right and enshrine into law the religious values of one particular constituency over others (thus violating everyone else's rights). In that case, it will alienate many voters and do tremendous harm to our great country.

Even though I can no longer regard myself as a Republican, I definitely regard myself as a loyal American. Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path -- the path of limited government, strict separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights. This is the America that brought my parents from a ocean away in hopes of a better life for themselves and their children. This is the America I want to live in. And this is the America I want the Republican Party to support.

Thank you for your consideration,
Paul Hsieh, MD

That letter was a response to an earlier e-mail I received from the secretary of my local county Republican Party, which I am posting below with his permission. In particular, he states that faith should be the basis of morality, and he explains his stance on abortion which essentially reflects the standard conservative Christian view. Here is an excerpt of his earlier letter:

...You seem to suggest that the opposition to stem-cell research and abortion places the GOP "in bed" with the religious right. Why this may appear to be the truth, there is an underlying connection that you are failing to acknowledge. The Republican Party upholds the founding principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, as the founding fathers specifically cited as rights Endowed by the Creator (Nature’s God, to be exact). These are rights not given, but endowed -- bestowed upon every human to protect. The idea of the endowment of Life is not new and not owned exclusively by the religious right. In the spirit of following the intent of the founders, and embracing their understanding of basic human rights, the Republican Party must uphold the Right of Life.

Inasmuch, the question is begged: When does life begin? Therein lies the debate.

In accordance with the 14th amendment, the rights of the founding documents are applicable to those "born" in the United States. That word would seem to indicate that a fetus of any gestational age is therefore without rights. This is the basis of the Roe decision in the Supreme Court. However, as a doctor, you should well understand that a fetus is very much alive and responsive to their environment from a fairly early gestational age, regardless of their ability to survive independent of their mother at the time. With the complexity of life in gestation, it serves humanity to better define Life -- not limiting life to begin merely at birth. Therefore we are in support of the Right of Life, as we consider life to exist during gestation.

Barack Obama has shown in his political career that he shows almost no compassion for life in the womb, supporting late term abortion and referring to children as a punishment. Having lost our first pregnancy, my wife and I are happy to have recently delivered our first child -- rest assured we do not feel punished. My brother and his wife also recently gave birth to their first child, who has been diagnosed with Propionic Acidemia -- and rest assured, they do not value his life any less, nor feel punished. I would assume that Mr. Obama would consider such a child a burden on society and the parents -- most likely he would suggest such a fetus be discarded. But is it not the challenge of life that should cause us to persevere... perhaps this young child holds the key to medical research that could aid in curing this and other genetic defects. Where Obama sees punishment and burden, I choose to see opportunity. This is a fundamental difference between me and the Senator -- and I would imagine that this is a similar difference between the Senator and a majority of Republicans who continue to fight, not because it is easy, rather because it is right.

The Republican Party does not openly nor privately advocate for any one religion, but we are advocates against the absence of faith from the lives of Americans. We are not a Christian organization, merely an organization that supports and endorses the existence of faith as a basis of morality -- not in government, but in the lives and hearts of the individual, at their own request and choosing. I personally could never be part of an organization that openly endorsed a state religion (such as the Constitution Party which openly supports naming Christianity as the official religion of the US). Furthermore, you will notice that the ranks of the GOP are filled with many people of faith, from many different religions. We support them all...

Sincerely,
Steven M Nielson
Secretary, Douglas County Republican Party

(This post originally appeared on Politics Without God, the blog for the Coalition for Secular Government.)

Niles on Property Rights and the Electrical Grid

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I just finished reading the featured article in the Summer 2008 issue of The Objective Standard, "Property Rights and the Crisis of the Electric Grid" by Raymond Niles, and I can whole-heartedly recommend it.

I had always wondered how the electrical utilities evolved into their current dysfunctional state as quasi-governmental entities, and never understood why utilities didn't function more like private providers of essential goods (like grocery stores or airlines). Niles traces the history of the electrical utilities from the 1880's to the present time, and shows how the current problems with the electrical industry are the result of government interference with basic property rights from the very inception.

I was particularly interested in his account of the California "deregulation" fiasco of 2000-2001. Diana and I lived in San Diego at that time, so we experienced this crisis of skyrocketing costs and rolling blackouts first-hand. However, I couldn't make sense of the newspaper accounts at the time, which generally blamed the "free market" for the problems. (For a typical portrayal of the events, this Wikipedia entry on the "California Electricity Crisis" is a good example of the conventional wisdom).

Fortunately, Niles is able to reduce this complex topic to its essentials, using property rights as the unifying theme. As an industry analyst, he has tremendous knowledge of the history, and is able to communicate it clearly to a lay audience. And besides offering a critique of the current system, he also articulates a positive alternative vision of a free market electrical system in which property rights are genuinely respected, and the benefits it could bring to producers and consumers alike.

Because his article is the featured free article, it is available to both subscribers and non-subscribers. So read the whole thing.

(On a personal note, I had the pleasure of meeting Ray Niles at the OCON 2008 conference a few weeks ago, and found him to be a thorougly intelligent, articulate, and pleasant dinner companion.)

HR 676

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

Surprise Meeting, Surprise Attack

You may not be aware of this, but in January 2007, John Conyers (D-MI) introduced legislation (HR 676) which will, for all practical purposes, nationalize the medical sector. Last Friday, after having attended a meeting I had heard nothing about until two nights before it was to occur, I was horrified and angered to learn not only that fact, but that a sizable contingent of Congressmen are working feverishly to build support for this bill among various pressure groups while deliberately keeping the voting public -- supporters and opponents alike -- in the dark about its nature.

According to the OpenCongress web site, the bill has 90 co-sponsors. (The Library of Congress lists 78.) Literature passed out on behalf of Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), further claims that HR 676 has the support of 14 "national/international" labor unions, 33 state AFL-CIO federations, 19 "national/state" organizations (ranging from the Hip Hop Caucus to the American Medical Students Association), and thousands of physicians and nurses.

Unofficial Meeting, Official Testimony?

This meeting started an hour and fifteen minutes late and ended after only one question from the audience. It was, in the words of Sheila Jackson-Lee, who ran it, an "unofficial hearing of the House Judiciary Committee". She even complained at the beginning of being "without a gavel" to call it to order. The proceedings were recorded, presumably for future use when the bill is debated in Congress.

Two sets of "witnesses" ("not panelists") were seated and offered their testimony as to why this bill should be passed. (On that, there was no dissent.) The atmosphere was somewhat informal, with lots of back-slapping ("Sheila Jackson-Lee [who was an official in the local Boy Scouts at one time] was a great Boy Scout.") and humor for show among the participants. At one point, Jackson-Lee demanded -- like an emcee at a variety show -- that the audience "give it up" more (i.e., applaud again, more loudly) for one of the witnesses after she finished speaking.

It was very quickly apparent that, contrary to its billing as an "examination" of the medical insurance crisis for all "healthcare stakeholders", this meeting was to be a selective gathering of endorsements for this bill from among prominent locals. All of these were involved in some way with medicine, group medical coverage, or egalitarian activism. The meeting was open to the public, but the lack of publicity and the small seating capacity of the venue indicated that there was no serious interest in obtaining feedback from the supposed beneficiaries of this legislation.

To my knowledge, there was absolutely no local media coverage of this event. (Contrast this to the nine results for Conyers and Jackson-Lee's other meeting here.) If this bill is such a great idea -- if we will all benefit so greatly from it -- would not two experienced professional politicians have managed to attract some publicity for this event? The media silence speaks volumes, all of it about why Conyers and Jackson-Lee would want to fly under the radar about their great plan. What possible harm could enormous gratitude and legions of adoring fans bring to a politician?

The secrecy will begin to make more sense when we consider the bill itself, and the meeting, in which Conyers (if I recall correctly) said he wanted to "frame" this legislation. Indeed it does, but not in the way he intended.

Warning Signs

Here are a few highlights taken from my notes on the meeting:

About 50-60 people attended, including about ten witnesses. In addition to Conyers and Jackson-Lee, Donna Christian-Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) attended. She served as a sort of opening act for Conyers and Jackson-Lee, speaking for a few minutes, starting just before they arrived.

Jackson-Lee indicated that we were "blessed" by Christensen's presence due to the fact that she is not just a female physician, but a black physician. Christensen stated one of the main themes of this meeting early on: She sees the medical insurance crisis as a racial issue. ("This system is discriminatory.") This idea, whether explicitly tied to race or implied by associating race with poverty, was frequently echoed during the remainder of the meeting.

(During the testimony, the audience was "blessed" with the sight of Christensen texting -- and not even pretending to try to be discreet about it. To her credit, however, she was awake. Conyers, self-appointed guardian of the public health, dozed off at one point.)

Christensen eventually brought up at least one of the two other bills (HR 6212 and HR 3014) touted as companions to HR 676. I have not yet looked into either of these in any detail, but I gather from various remarks that they are to include various measures to increase the number of minorities in the medical professions, start loan forgiveness programs, institute "health empowerment zones" (whatever that means), and train more American nurses. (Every time that came up, there were words to the Seinfeldian effect of "not that there's anything wrong with" immigration.) Christensen also expressed a desire for "culturally competent" care. I don't know about you, but when I'm sick, I want medically competent care.

Conyers, presiding over the meeting as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, delivered some long-winded opening remarks to the effect that he is interested in "correcting disparities", and wants to "improve healthcare" on the way to its eventual government takeover. (If more government control equals "improvement", we have been doing this for decades already.)

Most notably to me, Conyers attempted to portray his proposal as noncontroversial and practical, saying that this effort is not "theoretical", "philosophical", "idealistic", or "ivory towerish". I disagree with all but the last. The idea that someone else can dictate to me and my physician the terms under which we can do business is the political application (collectivism) of an objectively wrong theory of morality (altruism) that can have very negative practical results when applied.

Conyers also noted that many labor unions, after having initially expressed satisfaction with their medical coverage, have begun defecting to his plan after encountering the prospect of having coverage reduced in the face of the souring economy. In addition, and most notably, I got the impression that he thinks that Hillary Clinton, who made the last serious effort to nationalize medicine, failed tactically in her efforts to take over the medical sector of the economy.

Straight out of Atlas Shrugged

The format of the rest of the meeting was that a panel of witnesses was seated, with each in turn being allowed nominally three minutes to speak. Conyers could then solicit additional remarks after all were finished. After both panels, I think there was to have been a public Q&A, but this was cut short after only one question since Conyers and Jackson-Lee were leaving. Below are some highlights from the rest of the meeting, not all necessarily in order. Some names may not be correct due to the fact that my eyeglasses had broken that morning and for some reason, I hadn't yet been handed a new pair by my state caretakers in time for the meeting.

• One Dr. Hamilton noted that several physicians from his former practice who had specialized in internal medicine quit 5-10 years early. He cited this and the unprofitability of that practice as a good reason for passing HR 676. He was neither asked for nor volunteered whether he thought extensive state interference with the medical sector might have had anything to do with that.
• A young, black, handsome pediatrician, Dr. Raphael, brought up another recurrent theme of the proceedings: the poor or ignorant as "gatekeepers" of medical care, in this case, for their children. (More on that later.) He claimed to "speak for all pediatricians" in wanting greater "access" for children to good medical care. He also claimed that 60% of physicians want a single-payer plan.
  
• Local AFL-CIO President Dale Wortham, big, blustering, and wearing a Hawaiian shirt, expressed outrage at the medical insurance crisis. He seemed like the only person at the meeting with a clue about how much a national insurance plan would cost. Meaning that money for NASA to send men to the moon was wasteful and could be spent on medicine instead, he said, "We have the rocks." (Even a valid argument against government waste does not constitute a valid argument for the government taking over a sector of the economy.)
• In the first Q&A, Conyers, yanking words out of context to manufacture unintended insults like the best of 'em, called Wortham on the carpet for using the phrase "worst of the worst" to describe some of the people both were allegedly there to help. It was plainly obvious that Wortham meant, "worst off of the worst off", and yet Conyers demanded and got an apology from Wortham.
  
• Sheila Jackson-Lee again states that, "These are not panelists. They are witnesses." For whose benefit is she saying this?
• The second panel includes (1) a RESULTS.org activist who says she wants "equal opportunity for healthcare" (2) Dr. Jones, whom Jackson-Lee called "Mr. Disparities in Healthcare". He's part of the "Intercultural Cancer Caucus".
• Jones related a story of how a rich, rural man faced a medical facility with its closed emergency room on "drive-by" status -- What might EMTALA have had to do with that? -- had to try to fly his kid to one. His kid died in flight. Jones' point is that "access" "disparities" don't just affect the poor. No mention is made of the state's possible role in causing this needless death or how an even greater state role will not cause other kinds of "access problems" to become much more common.
• Dr. Bob (?) of Physicians for a National Health Program testifies that he is here to "debunk" the "myth" that state control of medicine will end health care as we know it. He is not an economist or a political philosopher, but a clinical psychologist.
  
• Oddly enough, Dr. Bob sees coverage limits on outpatient visits as evidence that, "The system routinely discriminates against my patients." Even more oddly, although this bill is being called "Medicare for All", he seems not to realize that the government, as the single payer, will have to make similar calls. Even the nation's resources are not unlimited. He also claims that the free market is limited in achieving "socially desirable [by whom? --ed] goals".
  
• Dr. Bob claims, contrary to Dr. Leonard Peikoff, that, "Health Care is a right."
• Dr. Bob also calls single-payer the "gold standard of administrative efficiency". Much of the rhetoric was focused on the large amount of money being spent to administer payment for medical care, as if the much wiser government could redirect most or all of it towards medical care. It seems like nobody in this room regards money as private property.
  
• A nurse from a Harris County hospital claims that the average age of a nurse has increased over her career from 32 to 50. This sounds plausible to me. It does not, however, follow that the state should take over the medical sector,.
  
• She also puts the family as "gatekeeper" this way or something like it:"Do I pay my electric bill or medical?" She fails to notice that Conyers' plan will take this decision out of our hands and put it in the hands of the government. I, for one, do not often agree with how the government spends the money it is already taking from me!
• She complains that only 5% of nurses are bilingual. Note that this bill intends to treat everyone in America. Mighty generous of us. And hell, we're not even going to ask our foreign "guests" to pick up a smattering of English, first!
  
• Betty Lewis, immediate past president of National Black Nurses Association, is also fixated on training "American" nurses. If this plan can magically fix nurse's compensation, which I believe came up at one point, why not magically declare all of us millionaires and solve the whole "access" problem once and for all?
  
• The token "capitalist" (TC) on the panel -- of witnesses -- runs a physician-owned facility that takes in a total of 80% of its revenue from Medicare and Medicaid, but that ends up writing off $20 million (per annum?) due to inability of its patients to pay. In my notes, I write, "This guy thinks he'll make out like a bandit."
• TC cites agreement with Milton Friedman as if to establish that he's a capitalist and then says there exist private, as opposed to public goods. He sees medicine as a "public good". Memo to Conyers, who dozed off during this (and I can see why): There's your "theory".
• One non-empaneled person (whose comment is obviously wanted) grovels for money to research various alleged "causes" of poor health among minorities. These generally sounded hokey to me.

So people, mostly poor, but sometimes including the rich, have to make sometimes painful decisions about how to spend their own money -- I mean, act as "gatekeepers". Sometimes, after hospitals (which also have bills to pay) close their emergency rooms to staunch the financial hemorrhaging of uninsured patients the government tells them they must treat if they show up, patients who could pay don't receive treatment and die -- I mean people don't have unlimited "access" to the time and resources of physicians. There remains a shred or two of freedom in the medical sector, so we have, in the words of some talking points that came with the bill, "had a market-run health care system for the last several decades". And, oh yeah, since the poor have the hardest time "accessing" adequate medical care and many of them are also members of minority groups, this whole state of affairs is not an object lesson on the evils of government interference in the economy, but a racist conspiracy! QED.

The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act

As for the bill itself, just covering this meeting has already taken me far longer than I planned this morning. I urge you to read it, though. As just an example, consider that this bill will make it illegal for private insurers to duplicate coverage allegedly provided by the state. This will require patients to either pay for all of their own medical care (unless this is construed as "self-insurance") or accept whatever the government -- as the new "gatekeeper" -- decides you will get.

And, while Conyers et al. claim that single-payer will permit you to choose your physician, recall that he is going to set the rate your physician receives for services. What will free choice even mean when demand skyrockets for "free" medical care and the "gatekeeper" has to decide whether to cut services, raise taxes, or reduce physician compensation? And what if the government disagrees with your physician over whether treating you is "medically necessary"? What criteria will it use? What if you no longer contribute income to the public coffers? Just because the national budget is bigger than a family's budget does not mean that it is limitless. Sooner or later, choices based on money will have to be made. If you -- rather than a government bureaucrat -- want to be the one making such choices, you should fight this plan.

Just this provision -- and it is only the tip of the government-takeover iceberg -- illustrates what is wrong with government interference in the economy in general and this plan in particular: The personal judgement of physician and patient alike can be nullified by government regulation or trampled at the whim of any government functionary entrusted with enforcing those regulations.

Conyers and his supporters are busy telling each other that this proposal will accomplish what Hillary Clinton's set out to do. At the same time, they are getting ready to tell its potential opponents that it differs greatly from Clinton's plan in substantive ways. (It does not. Consider the question of choice more fully. See above.) They are clearly planning to use the worsening insurance crisis as "evidence" that the free market cannot work. I suspect that they want to spring this proposal on a confused public and attempt to pass it rapidly, before it can be examined critically. Notice that much of their focus involves "answering" objections to Clinton's old plan (e.g., physician choice, it won't "end healthcare as we know it", the market has allegedly been tried and failed).

The time is now to get up to speed on this bill, digest the arguments against state control of medicine, and apply those arguments to this new variant. And if you do not have time to do so, or to work against this bill, then I urge you to support the Foundation for Individual Rights in Medicine, the Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, and the Ayn Rand Institute (which recently put out an op-ed debunking the free market facade of Medicare.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Corrected an error. (2) Corrected typos.

Quick Roundup 346

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

Electric Cars

Via HBL and Joseph Kellard comes what I agree is, for a change, an "honest report" about the viability of electric car technology. Joseph posts a few key excerpts at his blog.

I have always found the idea of an electric car interesting, but have been frustrated by the impression that the Greens want to cram this technology down my throat whether it really works or not. The answer from this more level-headed article is along these lines: The technology, promising, but still young, could soon help you save money on gasoline if applied properly. Interestingly enough, General Motors -- and not Toyota -- seems to have adopted the approach best-suited to the current state of the art:

[W]here should we look, realistically, for a mass-market electric vehicle? Believe it or not, Detroit. In fact, the quick-fix approach that strikes me as the most promising comes from -- surprise! -- General Motors, the chief villain of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The Chevy Volt, which the company wants to bring to market in 2010, is a plug-in hybrid that aspires to be able to travel 40 miles before switching to gasoline power. But the best part is that the combustion engine will automatically recharge the battery -- so it can switch back even while you're driving.

Forty miles is within the range of current battery technology and would work very well for short drives in the city. Were this car on the market now and I weren't facing the prospect of remaining poor because of my impending relocation to the insanely expensive Northeast, I'd seriously look at one of these. I hate throwing money away.

Live Free (as in Beer) or and Die

New Hampshire, whose state motto I have always loved, has tossed aside the principles that give it meaning to accept foreign aid from a tin pot dictator.

Two years ago, New Hampshire refused to accept heating oil from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the pro-Castro U.S. critic who once called President Bush "the devil." But with fuel prices rising, well, free oil is free oil.

With the state's blessing, New Hampshire residents will be receiving some of the fuel this winter.

New Hampshire becomes the last state in the Northeast to embrace the offer.

...

But the idea galled some New Hampshire Republicans, including Sen. John Sununu, who called the it a "disgrace" and an attempt at grandstanding by Chavez, and Democratic Gov. John Lynch squelched the effort.

This year, though, "the state's role is to make sure people are aware of the program," Lynch spokesman Colin Manning said.

A lot has changed over the past two years. Back then, heating oil sold for about $2.50 per gallon in the Northeast. Last month, the average price was $4.61, with predictions of $5 per gallon oil by winter.

No. The only thing that changed was the price of oil. I doubt that New Hampshire's state officials ever really understood the deeper issues here beyond the level of paying them lip service in order to grandstand.

Taking the oil is understandable, but it would be acceptable only if the customers, businessmen, and state officials involved vigorously called for the United States government to act (at a minimum) to recover from Venezuela the assets of American companies stolen by the Chavez regime.

There are similar moral issues for two kinds of parties to consider here. First, there is the moral question for each businessman and customer to consider when thinking about whether to accept the oil. Second, there is the question for the government officials of granting official state sanction to a foreign leader pandering to American citizens by offering them loot stolen in part from other Americans.

This is a very disappointing development.

Groveling and Pandering

Brian Phillips, who also attended John Conyers' farcical single payer testimonial meeting in Houston last Friday addresses an aspect of the proceedings I hadn't:

The participants were unanimously in favor of universal health care. Individually their testimony took one of two different paths.

The first path was one of overwhelming praise for the bill and its authors. America's health care system is in crisis, the witnesses said, and HR676 will address it. This was nothing more than blatant pandering to the egos of the politicians who were present. One in fact, pointed out that Lee was an excellent leader of a Boy Scout troop.

The second path was even more disgusting. While praising the bill, these witnesses said that it didn't go far enough. We need more money for training nurses, for mental health care, and for a number of other areas. These groveling witnesses wanted more for their particular pet projects. They weren't content to merely praise Lee and her cohorts, they wanted more public money thrown into their trough. [bold added]

People this scummy have no business dictating to you or me the terms under which we are to protect our health. This is pure evil.

You Have to Start Somewhere

Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite actors, and after recently watching The Bucket List, I remembered that among his first acting jobs was the role of "Easy Reader" on the PBS series, The Electric Company, a role he thought he played for too long.

It was my idea to just do The Electric Company for a couple of years and go on. But, you get trapped by that money thing. It's golden handcuffs. It gets a lot of people, including soap opera actors and commercial actors. Then, they don't want to see you in serious work. That was going to be me, having people come up to me saying "My kids love you!" I was there three years too long.

Be that as it may, I remember smiling when, as an adult, I realized that I was watching Easy Reader.


If you're old enough, you may wax nostalgic. If not, try not to laugh too hard. This was, after all, the seventies!

-- CAV

Of Cabbages and Kings

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Are there two candidates in this presidential race? Or is this election just an extended publicity trip for Obama before his coronation in November?

What's the other guy's name again? Oh, yeah. McCain. Ugh. Maybe it's just as well he's being ignored.

Obama is going to Europe to speak to his people. His constituency: people who think the world would be better off if America was weaker. Too bad for him Europeans can't vote in American elections.

Recently I read "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" by Flannery O'Connor. I won't spoil it by going into the plot, but my first reaction was: this story is evil. Not bad -- in fact, it's quite well written -- but evil. Flannery O'Connor was one twisted sister.

As I write I'm working on an Urban station in my day job. Urban is what the radio industry calls stations listened to by inner city minorities. Lots of other people listen to it too, even people in small towns, but it's called Urban, perhaps to distinguish it from Country.

Urban is Hip-Hop and R&B. So I'm a 51-year old white guy listening to Lil Wayne and Rihanna. If I didn't have this job and you had asked me to identify Rihanna, I might have guessed it was a sports car or maybe an Italian fashion designer. Rap music depresses me.

But then, I don't like any format much. Country is unbearable. Top 40 or "Hits" is rap with white artists in the mix. Adult Contemporary is a soporific, "soft rock," which is an oxymoron. (John Tesh, anyone?) Hot Adult Contemporary is mostly songs that people are used to, up to 15 years old, with some newish songs, but no rap. Rhythmic plays Top 40 songs remixed with that constant disco beat that says "dance" to contemporary ears. Oldies and Classic Rock play the same songs over and over and over. Active Rock is heavy metal. Alternative is usually heavy metal, but some stations feature more indie artists -- those are my favorite stations.

Adult Album Alternative is "world class rock" and often features whiny singer-songwriters with a little blues and reggae thrown in; these stations often make their image heavily environmentalist, as they equate morality with environmentalism. The idea seems to be that they have honesty and integrity in the music they play, and these virtues compel them to be environmentalist. Environmentalism is the secular left's substitute for religion. When they stick to bands and not singer-songwriters so much, these stations can be good.

Variety Rock is mostly '80s, but some '60s, '70s, '90s and today. These stations always have a man's name, like Jack or Charlie or Doug. Usually Jack. Jack says hip, funny things and "plays what he wants." It's like Jack is an individualist who stands up to the corporate suits and ignores their playlists. Of course, Variety Rock has been thoroughly market researched, despite their image, and they have a playlist just like every other format.

When I get in the car and turn on the radio, what do I listen to? Classical music, except when they do their pledge drives and beg for contributions, and sports talk radio, some political talk and some Classic Rock.

Some young people hate classical music so much that convenience stores have been known to pipe Mozart through their speakers just to discourage mindless youth from hanging around on the property. Like Black Flag to roaches is Vivaldi to young idiots.

Flibbertigibbet says he does not go for women because of this. Of course, Flibbertigibbet understands that it's funny because women don't act like that. Women never fart.

UPDATE: I forgot one of my favorite formats, Urban Adult Contemporary. They play today's R&B and old school classic soul. You get the good stuff from the '60s and '70s -- Delphonics, Marvin Gaye, Earth, Wind and Fire -- tasty tunes.

Greasy Congressional Fingers in Our 401(k)s

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Isn't it enough that Congress forcibly takes your income and spends it any way it wants--for the frivolous or ridiculous, extravagant or exorbitant? Now they want to control the way you spend your own money!

Democrat Senators, Charles Schumer (NY) and Herb Kohl (WI), will introduce a bill prohibiting the use of debit cards to withdrawal from one's 401(k) as well as limit the number of loans a 401(k) participant can take (doing so requires a monthly payment, fees and interest). Because of the crisis in the housing and financial markets, more people are dipping into their 401(k)s. Some financial experts believe this is an unsound financial practice.

Some people make bad financial choices, like getting overburdened with credit card debt, obtaining a loan for an unaffordable house, or investing 100% of their savings in some retirement swamp in the bayou.

But what if you needed money from your 401(k) and you needed it now? What if you judged it to be in your best interest? Your financial choices--good or bad--should be up to you as an adult to decide. And it should be no body's business but your own.

But Senators Schumer and Kohl won't give you permission to make those choices. So, you can just go to your room without supper!!

This bill is just another of the countless historic violations of the separation of state and economics, and here are some reasons why this bill is bad:

1. It's a grotesque trampling of your property rights: your money really isn't yours--not the money in your pocket nor in your savings account.

2. It's a flagrant and demeaning demonstration of paternalism: the idea that government knows better than you do what's best for your financial situation.

3. It's a total disregard for the right to pursue your life with the only resource that makes that possible: the earnings from your work to purchase the necessities and enjoyments of life.

Here's my letter to those Senators: "Get your greasy pork-fat fingers out of my pockets!"

Does Wall-E Deliver on the Pixar Promise?

By Brandon Byrd from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Okay... I'll admit it. I anxiously anticipate each new Pixar film. Not only that, I get tingly just thinking about the pre-feature short animations that inevitably precede each Pixar release. And when the lamp in their logo hops across the screen, I can't help but grin.

Things haven't always been this way. When Pixar started working their magic back with Toy Story, I was less smitten with animated feature-length movies than I was with the sundry amusements of adolescent boyhood. But by the time Finding Nemo hit the theaters in 2003, I was ready to give 'cartoons' another shot. I'm glad I did. When The Incredibles followed a year later, I was a bit skeptical at first... did the world really need another superhero movie? Prior to seeing it, I couldn't have even begun to suspect that Pixar's superheroes were not just struggling against an evil villain, but also against an egalitarian culture marked by disdain for achievement (and a legal system in serious need of tort reform). To me, The Incredibles was another delightful Pixar surprise. And while I found Cars, their next movie, to be a vacuous disappointment, Ratatouille renewed my enthusiasm for the Pixar brand. In light of all their recent successes, Pixar's future seemed promising.

Wall-E, Pixar's latest film, was released on June 27^th. For those of you keeping track, that was just about the time that OCON 2008 got underway, so I didn't get a chance to check it out on opening weekend. This past Sunday my girlfriend and I found the time to head off to the multiplex and give Wall-E a proper viewing. In what follows, I'll provide an indication of why I regard Wall-E as an enjoyable but deeply flawed movie. And just so you know, my comments are basically spoiler-free.

As you may have been able to gather from the media buzz, Wall-E is a movie about a robot. A robot trash-compactor. More precisely, it is a movie about a "Waste Allocation Load Lifter - Earth-class," or "WALL-E," for your anthropomorphic convenience. (I'll henceforth use the all-caps "WALL-E" to refer to the robot character, and "Wall-E" to designate the movie itself). According to Wall-E writer-director Andrew Stanton, the original spark that ultimately gave rise to the film was a scenario in which the last robot on Earth toiled away in lonely isolation, longing for companionship and social fulfillment. Indeed, this is how Wall-E begins. After briefly surveying a horrific, almost post-apocalyptic landscape, the viewer is introduced to WALL-E who is busy performing his characteristic task: compacting and organizing trash. After another extreme wide shot or two, the magnitude of WALL-E's project becomes clear, as his stacks of trash reach towering heights alongside abandoned skyscrapers and other similarly massive pillars of industry.

The bleakness of this world is expertly rendered by Pixar's typically stunning animation and audio work. The stylistic excellence and technical proficiency that made Ratatouille burst with lush colors, textures, and sound effects, are also evident in Wall-E, though they are for the most part utilized to portray a world of trash. As unappealing and valueless as a world of trash sounds, WALL-E takes it upon himself to collect (rather than compact) those items that he finds to be of interest. After all, one human's trash is another robot's treasure. It's comical to see what WALL-E chooses to collect and what to discard, though perhaps his most cherished possession is nothing to laugh at. What is it? A copy of Hello Dolly on VHS that he found amidst the refuse of civilization. Of particular value to WALL-E are the numbers "It Only Takes a Moment" and "Put on Your Sunday Clothes," both ostensibly about companionship and love. Hearing these songs played by the last, lonely robot on Earth serves to heartbreakingly accent the tragedy of such radical isolation.

I'm getting misty just thinking about it.

But WALL-E's isolation doesn't last too long, as another robot (EVE) is soon on the scene. After EVE arrives, WALL-E finds a new purpose for himself in the quest for companionship. And this is really what the rest of the movie is about, about WALL-E attempting to gain and keep the attention of EVE. In other words, it's a robot love story. And it's a pretty entertaining one, at that. But given that the principals are robots, there is a sizable barrier in telling a convincing story about their relationship: robots don't have language. Prior to this movie's release, I remember there being some serious concern about how audiences would respond to a movie whose main characters engage in basically no dialog. Fortunately one of Pixar's major virtues (at least in the Pixar movies I've seen) is that they go to great lengths to actually show the viewer what's going on, to demonstrate the plot without having to unnecessarily explain events as they're unfolding. At least in this respect, Wall-E is an excellent movie. Though little is said, little need be said; the data are there for the viewer to infer the movie's meaning without superfluous exposition or hand-holding.

Although the Pixar team is able to dispense with dialog without sacrificing intelligibility, they unfortunately sacrifice something else: depth. Since language is not a big part of how Wall-E is told, characterization is primarily achieved through action. That is, we know WALL-E not by his words (not by his stated convictions) but rather by his deeds. The same goes for the other main characters. We don't see them engage in deliberation. We don't listen to them make choices. We don't explicitly know what motivates them. And, perhaps most importantly, neither do the other characters of Wall-E know such things. WALL-E cannot verbally communicate his desire for companionship to EVA, just as she cannot verbally communicate her intentions and purposes to him. What this ultimately means for WALL-E's romance with EVA is that while these robots are capable of showing one another THAT they are attracted, they cannot communicate WHY. Although viewers can probably create a story as to why EVA means so much to WALL-E, it's doubtful that EVA could herself construct such an account. Because of this, the romance in Wall-E is superficial. Of course, that shouldn't suggest that the story isn't touching. It just isn't reflective of the values (and the expression of values) that I take to be indicative of a truly great cinematic or literary romance.

To summarize thus far, Wall-E is an enjoyable but limited success insofar as one considers it as a love story. But when one looks beyond the romantic element of the movie, there are much larger issues looming in the background that threaten to swallow the love-narrative wholly. In my judgment, these issues represent serious aesthetic deficiencies that diminish the artistic value of the movie as whole. Let's now take a look at them.

I first heard about the premise of Wall-E in an interview between writer-director Andrew Stanton and Terri Gross, host of NPR's "Fresh Air." (The interview is available here.) Terry Gross lead into the interview by noting that Wall-E is set after a consumer-driven environmental apocalypse has made Earth uninhabitable. Upon hearing this, I was half-way down the road to disgust, but Stanton quickly responded by saying:

I [chose this setting] very reluctantly. I sort of reverse engineered my decision. It was all based on character and emotion. The conceit that got me interested in this movie was: the last robot on earth doing its job forever, not knowing that it was a waste of time. And I thought that was the ultimate definition of futility - I completely was seduced by that. And so, in my mind, that's what was so charming - the last robot on earth - so I had to just come up with SOME conceit that would make that situation. Just to get this kind of character, I was forced to come up with a scenario...

At the time, Stanton's response calmed me down a bit because the gist of it was something like: "Look, environmental destruction isn't an integral part of the movie; it's extra-thematic, and is only there as a pretext to allow the characters I wanted to represent to come out into the open; I had to set the context SOMEHOW, and this was just the most convenient device to allow the movie to come together."

If this represented how the movie finally turned out, I would have been okay (though not delighted) with abstracting away from the setting and focusing in on the somewhat shallow love narrative. But in the final analysis, the setting for Wall-E is not unessential to the themes the film ultimately expresses. I haven't mentioned any human characters yet in this review, because they're basically irrelevant to Wall-E's plot. But let me digress for a moment to give you a brief indication of the type of human being you'll encounter in this film. In doing so, I hope you'll gain a sense of why Wall-E is the mixed bag that it is.

All the humans we see (in non-flashback form) in Wall-E are obese, weak-willed, ignorant adult-children who have been carted around their entire life by robots. Every human in the movie is a passenger on a 700+ year space-cruise that was necessitated by the environmental apocalypse. The planet was dying, so the humans went on a cruise while all the robots cleaned up. These people spend their entire lives sprawled out on moving robot hoverchairs watching computer screens, drinking meals from cups, altogether unconcerned with the need to think, work, or make decisions. Did I mention that they're so unconcerned with physical activity that they've experienced severe bone loss? Moreover, the people aboard the cruise ship are altogether anti-social in that they rarely (if ever) stop to talk to those around them, but instead interact through virtual social networks on their robochair-mounted screens.

If you were to ask a contemporary neo-Marxist to draw a caricature of contemporary American "consumerism" (whatever that is), it is doubtful that the result would be much different from what is presented in Wall-E. Perhaps the best thing one might say about Pixar's handling of the people in Wall-E is that they're presented as relatively sympathetic creatures. That is to say, they're not presented as drinking crude oil from their Big Gulp cups (though their ancestors apparently drank up all the oil long ago) and they aren't shown clubbing baby seals. But they are docile, complacent, fat. Watching screens. Living a lifestyle that destroyed the world.

While viewing the film within the confines of my northwest Ohio theater, I dimly wondered if the film was intended to insult its audience.

To say that Wall-E's presentation of humans was distracting is to say the least. To the extent that humans are involved in the narrative at all, they have been crammed into characters and roles determined by the "lonely-robot context" requirement. Simply put, Wall-E's humans have been dehumanized so its robot could gain the shallow appearance of humanity.

Artistic license does not carry a "by any means necessary" clause; it does not entitle one to ignore or degrade genuine values (like the life-giving power of commerce) for the sake of portraying one's pet character. If one wants, at root, to convey a story of love borne out of tragic isolation, this does not require one to invent an alternative future in which particular societal arrangements have been destructive of life as we know it. The inclusion of any such claim is not to be taken lightly; it is an indictment that certain practices are massively disastrous and deserving of moral condemnation.

To build such a claim into the setting of a children's movie, and to do so simply for the sake of gaining plausibility for an empathetic character, is more than distracting. It's obnoxious.

I'm not the only viewer who took notice of Wall-E's apparently didactic, anti-industry sub-theme. In the interview mentioned above, Terry Gross read Stanton excerpts from two prominent reviews, one liberal and one conservative. The liberal review amounted to the endorsement that Wall-E was more in tune with current political issues than candidates on either side of the debate platform; the conservative-leaning reviewer felt that the movie assaulted him with environmentalist propaganda. Responding to these reviews, Stanton said:

Sadly, I'm not surprised. But I tried very hard not to have any kind of a [didactic message about environmentalism or consumerism]. I just went with [the] logic of how you could be in this scenario so that I could tell the story of a lonely little robot.

Leave the supposed logic of the situation aside. As an artist, one's primary concern is the presentation of a theme, one's central idea and vision. If a film's theme concerns a "lonely little robot," viewers shouldn't exit the theater wondering how they can do their part to stem the coming post-industrial holocaust. And sadly, I think that's what many people (especially children) will do.

I believe Stanton was sincere when he said that he didn't intend for his movie to have a didactic message. I don't think he intended to brainwash children into joining radical environmentalist movements. (In this respect, Wall-E is obviously superior to Fox's FernGully: The Last Rainforest.) For all Stanton's intelligence, he seems to have simply made a mistake in constructing his story. The fact that multiple reviewers paused to note that his film has strong political/policy undertones is indicative that he let his theme get away from him. This is the main reason I regard Wall-E as a major disappointment.

As it stands, the movie is too thematically disjointed to qualify as great art. The doom and gloom of the sub-theme end up distracting the viewer from what's really supposed to be important. Regardless of how one evaluates Wall-E's anti-industrial elements, they unnecessarily divert attention away from the screenwriter's primary concern. At some points it seems as though a polemic against consumerism is of central importance, with the romantic element being a mere interesting side-issue. In light of Stanton's stated purpose of creating a love story, the movie fails to effectively communicate what is supposed to be essential to its theme. And unfortunately, Wall-E is overly successful in emphasizing elements that are inessential to Stanton's central message. While watching, it's too easy to forget that even robots can fall in love.

What a shame.

Good Deeds

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here at NoodleFood, we like to use our powers for good.

I'm now blogging regularly at Politics without God about secular government, as is Paul. Paul also continues to blog regularly at We Stand FIRM about free market medicine. Some of the posts from those two blogs have been and will be cross-posted to NoodleFood, most posts have not been and will not be. However, many would be of interest to NoodleFood readers. So from now on, I'll post a quick list of the week's posts from each blog each Sunday, exactly like this:

Politics without God:

• Monday, July 14, 2008: McCain on Adoption: Gay Couples Need Not Apply by Diana Hsieh
  
• Wednesday, July 16, 2008: Washington Post on Amendment 48 by Diana Hsieh
  
• Friday, July 18, 2008: GOP Platform: Speak Out by Diana Hsieh

We Stand FIRM:

• Monday, July 14, 2008: Paula Hall: Don't Become A Primary Care Physician by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Tuesday, July 15, 2008: Father of Canadian Health System Says It's In "Crisis" by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Wednesday, July 16, 2008: Peikoff Video: Health Care Is Not A Right by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Thursday, July 17, 2008: More On Massachusetts Mandates Mess by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Friday, July 18, 2008: Commonwealth Fund At It Again by Paul Hsieh, MD

Enjoy!

Global Warming Science In Action

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Dedicated scientists will stop at nothing in the fight against global warming:

In an attempt to understand the extent of cow flatulence on global warming, scientists in Argentina are strapping plastic bags to the backs of cows to capture their emissions. Argentina has more than 55 million cows, making it a leading producer of beef. In the study, the scientists were surprised to discover that a standard 550-kg cow produces between 800 to 1,000 liters of emissions, including methane, each day...

"When we got the first results, we were surprised," said Guillermo Berra, a researcher at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology in Argentina. "Thirty percent of Argentina's (total greenhouse) emissions could be generated by cattle."

In their study, the researchers attached balloon-like plastic packs to the backs of at least 10 cows. A tube running to the animals' stomachs collected the gas inside the backpacks, which were then hung from the roof of the corral for analysis.

Unfortunately, the global warming authoritarians will just use this as an excuse to clamp down on cows as well as people.

Quick Roundup 345

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

Excellent Satire

This Onion story would be funnier if it didn't so well characterize the dominant Keynesian view of economics held by our politicians and chattering classes, as well as the Pragmatism that is effectively lobotomizing our culture:

"What America needs right now is not more talk and long-term strategy, but a concrete way to create more imaginary wealth in the very immediate future," said Thomas Jenkins, CFO of the Boston-area Jenkins Financial Group, a bubble-based investment firm. "We are in a crisis, and that crisis demands an unviable short-term solution." [bold added]

Or the idea that the truth is what most people feel that it is:

"Little pieces of paper are the next big thing," speculator Joanna Nadir, of Falls Church, VA said. "Just keep telling yourself that. If enough people can be talked into thinking it's legitimate, it will become temporarily true."

And that punchline at the end is also a nice bit of inadvertent philosophical journalism....

And the Next Government-Financed Scam Is...

... Wind Power.

In what experts say is the biggest investment in the clean and renewable energy in U.S. history, utility officials in the Lone Star State gave preliminary approval Thursday to a $4.9 billion plan to build new transmission lines to carry wind-generated electricity from gusty West Texas to urban areas like Dallas.

...

Texas electric customers will bear the cost of construction over the next several years, paying about $3 or $4 more per month on their bills, according to Tom Smith, state director of the consumer group Public Citizen. But he predicted that increase would easily be offset by lower energy prices.

Oilman T. Boone Pickens has been lobbying hard for this, but his project will power only "1.3 million homes" if he completes it and it delivers as promised, while everyone in Texas who buys electricity will be paying an estimated $3-4 per month for it for the "next several years". (The $4.9 billion price tag amounts to $233 for each of the 21 million men, women, and children currently residing here.)

If wind power were really such a great cash cow, why can't or won't Pickens finance this himself? Why insulate him from losses if he's wrong, while guaranteeing that everyone in Texas will subsidize his next fortune at best or take his bath at worst?

Whatever he may have accomplished in the past, Pickens, with government help, has now become a looter of fabulous proportions.

Commercial Art

A newspaper flier has alerted me to a commercial art exhibition taking place in Houston. Each whimsical piece --which you can view in the on-line gallery -- is made entirely from Red Bull cans. I don't drink it myself, but I really like the creativity here, and the color scheme of the cans lends itself well to this activity.

One criticism I have is that my favorite piece, "Unbridled", is very hard to see with the Adobe Flash viewer they are using to show the pieces. "Zoom" really ought to let you zoom out. Not to knock "A Wish Granted", which I also like, but that's why you can't see the bull here.

Chavez Passes out Bush Bulbs in Houston

There was an Ayn Rand Institute press release awhile back that correctly called President Bush and Hugo Chavez the "Two Amigos".

How fitting is it, then, that now that President Bush signed into law the statutory obsolescence of incandescent "Edison" bulbs in favor of mercury-laden compact fluorescent "Bush" bulbs, his amigo, Hugo Chavez, has taken that as his cue to start passing them out among the poor in Houston?

Citgo Petroleum, the Houston-based refiner owned by the Venezuelan government, will distribute 460,000 compact fluorescent light bulbs to consumers in 11 U.S. cities in the coming months.

It's an expansion of a program Citgo has done through the Boston-based nonprofit Citizens Energy, which has provided $100 million in heating oil to low-income households the past three winters. [link added]

True, Edison bulbs are still legal for now, but in addition to violating our property rights and dictating how we will light our homes in the future, the bill was a sweeping moral capitualation by the United States government to global warming hysteria.

Without the help of that great "Second Messiah", Hugo Chavez, how, how, O Lord, will the poor be able to join the great crusade against global warming climate change? Bush may be a failure as a President, but he's doing a superb job of helping the likes of Chavez to come in and look like a hero to people who don't know any better. Thanks for less than nothing, presidente.

-- CAV

"Common Carrier" Craziness

By Paula Hall from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The common law doctrine of "common carrier" would be funny if it weren't so stupid. In effect, the common carrier doctrine operates by designating a service as indispensible, and then destroying that service.

A New York Times article discusses the doctrine in the context of the debate over the advisability of "net neutrality," which is "the idea that Internet access providers like Comcast should not be allowed to favor some uses of their networks over others."

[The chairman of a net neutrality advocacy group] said the issues at stake go back to the common-law concept of a common carrier, which defined certain businesses — from blacksmiths to ferries — as so essential to commerce that their owners could not discriminate against any paying customer.

The 'Lectric Law Library fleshes out what it means to "not discriminate," in the classic application of the doctrine to a transportation provider:

1. To carry passengers whenever they offer themselves and are ready to pay for their transportation. They have no more right to refuse a passenger, if they have sufficient room and accommodation, than an innkeeper has to refuse a guest.

What's funny is that no-one seems to follow this policy to its logical conclusion. Let's say a common carrier does routinely refuse to provide service to certain individuals or a class of individuals. If the carrier is profit-seeking, the refusal to provide service will rest on the profitability of that refusal, or else some other carrier will enter the business to provide service to the denied individuals. Under the common carrier doctrine, such "discriminating" carriers would have to be punished, in proportion with the severity and persistency of their discrimination. Eventually, one or all of the following three things will occur: 1) common carriers will cease to be profitable as a result of increasing fines, and go out of business, 2) punishment of carriers will escalate to forcibly shutting noncompliant carriers down, or 3) no-one will undertake common carrier trades. Either way, the doctrine must have the effect of eliminating the businesses designated as common carriers.

If all of the above is true, then why, you may ask, do we still have common carriers? It is because we have a mixed economy. In a free economy, all property is privately owned, including all businesses. In a mixed economy such as ours, internet service providers such as Comcast can do business only if they are first licensed by the government. Once licensed, they enjoy a near-monopoly, with the ability through incumbency and lobbying to prevent other potential providers from entering the field.

So, we now we have the following perversion of incentives: a government policy of violating property rights (the common carrier doctrine) becomes a weapon by which those whose rights are violated (like Comcast) keep competitors out of the field by force. That is, the system is set up so that it is possible to make money by giving up your rights, so long as you thereby gain the power to violate the rights of others.

Ironically, this policy is supposedly designed to protect consumers. But it is consumers who lose in the end. Licensed common carriers have little incentive to provide good service at a good price, because consumers have no choice but to deal with them. So under common carrier policies, consumers must either 1) purchase overpriced and inferior services, or 2) face the complete unavailability of those services.
There's a way to describe a policy like this. It's called "stupid."

Actually, there's a better way to describe the common carrier doctrine. Wrong.

Speak for Rights

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Over on Politics without God, the new blog of the Coalition for Secular Government, I just published an instructional post on submitting comments in defense of the separation of church and state to the GOP Platform Committee, with a few samples of good comments.

Remember, any submissions should be clear, succinct, and polite, but they need not be your most eloquent work.

John McCain: Pseudo-Maverick III

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

About the controversial New Yorker cover that burlesqued "right wing" allegations against Barack and Michelle Obama, Senator John McCain might have observed:

"In another, saner time, a satirical, unflattering caricature of anyone, especially of a presidential candidate, would not be newsworthy or anything to make a fuss about in public. Think of all the cartoons and comedy skits that mocked JFK and Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. Certainly I've been lampooned and depicted as an aging mummer - and some of those cartoons are very clever - but I've seen much worse caricatures of Senator Obama in the press here and overseas than what I saw on the cover of The New Yorker, and no one objected to them. So I don't understand the uproar over it. The irony is that The New Yorker is Senator Obama's friend, not mine, and the cover was meant to help him, do him a favor. And now everyone's expecting the magazine to apologize. Well, maybe too many people are just slow-witted or thin-skinned to get the cover's joke, but that shouldn't be an obstacle to anyone's freedom of expression or speech. I'm reminded of British Prime Minister Robert Walpole lustily joining in one of the choruses when he attended John Gay's The Beggar's Opera in 1728, in many respects an unflattering, critical musical satire on him and his own government...."

Unfortunately, McCain did not say it. Instead, he and his campaign spokesman agreed with the Obama campaign that the cover was "tasteless and offensive" and "totally inappropriate." It would not be far from the truth to say that, for the ire it provoked, the cover of The New Yorker is the American version of the Danish Mohammad cartoons. The reaction to it lends some substance to retired Senator Phil Gramm's remark that America has become a "nation of whiners."

But, deeper than that, the fact that the left - nearly everyone in the Obama camp - was incensed by the cover, is a clue to the hostility to freedom of speech, and to freedom in general, that simmers beneath the patina of "hope and change."

Of course, the cover of The New Yorker is an example of the First Amendment in action. John McCain is no friend of the First Amendment. He and his partners in the Senate and House would like to see it reinterpreted - that is, circumvented in a campaign of special pleading - so that any group of citizens that does not meet their perception of a legitimate organization as defined by the byzantine logic of the McCain-Feingold or Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act will be denied the right to criticize candidates, incumbent candidates, and even oppose or endorse issues if a certain amount of money is or is not spent in an arbitrarily specified way. The Supreme Court in June 2007 ruled one of the Act's strictures "invalid," when it ought to have found the entire act in violation of the First Amendment.

As one blogger summed up the peril while discussing the efforts of another organization caught red-handed minding its First Amendment business:

"SpeechNow.org wants to criticize politicians who support restrictions on political speech. But first it has to get permission from the government."

A Human Events article of June 28, 2007, discussed the Supreme Court ruling in clearer terms than the wording of the McCain-Feingold Act and more or less said that the ruling was just a slap on the wrist of the Federal Election Commission, the entity charged with enforcement of the campaign finance law. The Court in a majority opinion decided "to abolish the absolute prohibition against radio-TV ads referencing or depicting a federal officeholder/candidate on any topic in the days before an election."

"Sen. McCain...issued a statement calling the Supreme Court's decision 'regrettable,' fearing no doubt that the ruling could well result in TV and radio ads castigating him for his efforts on a myriad of issues he is promoting that conservatives find wholly distasteful."

The article also upbraids Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi for "lamenting...the undue influence of conservative radio talk show hosts in opposing the Senate's proposed immigration legislation," and Senator Diane Feinstein of California, who proposed that the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated "to mute the voices of conservative radio talk show hosts." Just as importantly, a revival of the Fairness Doctrine would leave listeners no choice but to endure the opposing opinions of speakers they would rather not listen to, but which Feinstein and company want to force them to hear, and which the stations and programs would be forced to accommodate under penalty of fines and the revocation of their licenses.

In the meantime, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California would like to muzzle the speech of "grassroots lobbyists" who seek a hearing from or an audience with politicians by making it too expensive and cumbersome.

A Human Events article from December 2006 reports that Pelosi's bill, which failed to pass committee,

"...would apply to those who have no Washington-based lobbyists, who provide no money or gifts to members of Congress, and who merely seek to speak, associate and petition the government...[I]t is targeted directly at the First Amendment rights of citizens and their voluntary associations."

Make no mistake about it: There are moves in Congress, in concurrence with the stated objectives of both presidential candidates (and even with those of some who have since dropped out of the race) to "reform" government and Congress by silencing or side-lining any opposition to their actions. McCain has been a prominent point man in that effort since 1994. The First Amendment has already been suborned, nullified, or violated in numerous ways by Congress and the White House in regards to tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies and other producers. There is no reason to believe a McCain administration would not completely scrap the First Amendment under the guise of "change."

McCain poses as a "fiscal conservative," endorsing permanent tax cuts, reducing the corporate tax rate, and offering tax credits for research and development, and other scale-backs in government spending. George Bush, however, also posed as a fiscal conservative, but under his watch the federal government has rung up the biggest federal deficit in the nation's history. If McCain faces a Congress controlled by the tax-and-spend-and-live-for-the-state Democrats next year, all those promises he has made and will continue to make between now and November will have been just hot air. Surely he realizes that.

As for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain has advocated withdrawing troops from Iraq by 2013, once the altruist, self-sacrificing mission of leaving behind a "stable" government there is accomplished, and increasing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan to fight a resurgent Taliban. He endorsed President Bush's war policies in those countries. But there has been no hint in his rhetoric that perhaps those wars were the wrong ones to fight, that our actual enemies are Iran and Saudi Arabia, the true financial and political enablers of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has shown no evidence that he has "followed the money," or, if he has, that it makes any difference to him.

McCain has accused Obama of wanting to sit down and talk with "rogue states" to solve conflicts. But in 2006 he told a British journalist quite another story concerning Hamas:

"They're the government [of the Palestinians]; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so...but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

The Palestinians got democracy. They voted for Hamas, a stateless "rogue state." And if "reality" keeps changing in the Mideast, it is because of the U.S.'s vacillating, pragmatic policies in that region.

McCain, during a primary debate in May 2007, claimed that he would track down Osama bin Laden. "We will capture him. We will bring him to justice, and I will follow him to the gates of hell." Well, Bush made the same promise, but then hamstrung our military with "humanitarian" rules of engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq and allied the U.S. with another rogue state: Pakistan.

The true character of McCain's proposed foreign policy can be deduced from his advocacy of a "league of democracies," much like what Theodore Roosevelt favored (with whom McCain, incidentally, identifies, which is not to his credit if one knows anything about Roosevelt), a group of "like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace."

But, was that not the original purpose of the United Nations?

"McCain is careful to note that his proposed multinational organization would not be like Woodrow Wilson's failed 'League of Nations.'"

McCain claimed, "It could act where the U.N. fails to act."

Has McCain ever bothered to learn why the League of Nations failed to prevent World War II? Has he ever grasped why the U.N. fails to act, such as in its recent non-condemnation of Robert Mugabe and his tyranny in Zimbabwe (China and Russia, those two monuments to "democracy," vetoed the resolution), or when it does act, why it always fails, such as in Darfur or any other killing ground in the world?

The altruist, self-sacrificing moral character of his "league of democracies" becomes evident.

"Such a new body, he says, could help relieve suffering in Darfur, fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa, develop better environmental policies, and provide 'unimpeded market access' to countries sharing 'the values of economic and political freedom.'"

Such as the economic and political freedom he advocates for this country? Barack Obama could express a similar "ideal" and it would not conflict with what he proposes to do about our remaining economic and political freedoms - which is not dissimilar from what McCain proposes to do about them.

In conclusion, and to paraphrase someone's observation about the current presidential campaign: Barack Obama and the Democrats are pursuing the overthrow of the American Revolution, while John McCain and the Republicans are trying to forget that it had ever happened.

Who is committing the graver treason?

Socialists vs. Your Health in Houston

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

Paul Hsieh has emailed me concerning an event to be held in Houston this Friday, July 18. Quoting the flier its organizers have been distributing:

• What: Examination of the Healthcare crisis in America and offering Universal Healthcare as the solution with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee and Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
• When: Friday, July 18, 2008 from 1:30 - 3:30pm
• Where: The John P. McGovern Theater, The Health Museum, 1515 Hermann Drive, Houston, TX
• Why: Approximately 47 million Americans lack health insurance coverage and it is believed that another 50 million are underinsured. Healthcare costs in the United States are increasing about 7 percent a year, twice the rate of inflation. In Texas alone it has been estimated that we waste $98 billion on administrative health costs. Administrative costs constitute 31 percent of health care expenditures. The deteriorating U.S. health care system is not only harming patients, but also businesses, and the economy with healthcare costs consuming over 15 percent of GDP
• Invited Guests: Healthcare stakeholders, including: hospital administration physicians, nurses, the uninsured and underinsured of Harris County

One "stakeholder", an employee of a nearby medical school, who was completely blindsided by this wrote:

As far as I can tell, there have been no fliers posted about it [here] and it was [also] absent from [the] last newsletter.... I suppose that if our future physicians are going to be slaves, why treat them as equals by bothering to get their input?

And apart from the obviously specious notion of a welfare-state politician actually "examining" the "Healthcare [sic] crisis", an honest and thorough appraisal of the situation would show that government interference is to blame, and that instituting even more government interference is not going to do anything but make matters worse.

For anyone from Houston (or there on business or for care at the world's largest medical center) and who might want to attend it on this short notice -- or who may wish to prepare himself to help defend the freedom of physicians the next time it comes under attack -- I provide the following list of resources on Paul's recommendation.

• "Health Care is Not A Right" by Leonard Peikoff
• "Ted Kennedy vs. Universal Healthcare: A Double Irony" by Richard Parker, MD
• "The Right Vision of Health Care" by Yaron Brook
• "FAQ on Free Market Health Insurance" by Paul Hsieh, MD
• "Moral Health Care Vs. 'Universal Health Care'" by Lin Zinser, JD and Hsieh, MD
• "The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems Around the World" Michael Tanner, March 18, 2008, Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 613.
• "Health Care in a Free Society: Rebutting the Myths of National Health Insurance" John Goodman, January 27, 2005, Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 532.

Of the last two, he states that, "[T]hey are fairly useful for concrete factual information, but ... don't go all the way in making the full moral argument for free market medicine."

-- CAV

Coalition for Secular Government

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I'm pleased to announce the formation of a grassroots ad-hoc group -- the Coalition for Secular Government (CSG) -- to fight for the separation of church and state. The mission of CSG reads:

The Coalition for Secular Government advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- including freedom of religion and conscience -- requires a strict separation of church and state.

Consequently:

1. We oppose any laws or policies based on religious scripture or dogma, such as restrictions on abortion and government discrimination against homosexuals.
   
   
2. We oppose any government promotion of religion, such as the teaching of intelligent design in government schools and tax-funded "faith-based initiatives."
   
   
3. We oppose any special exemptions or privileges based on religion by government, such as exemptions for churches from the tax law applicable to other non-profits.

The only proper government is a secular government devoted to the protection of individual rights.

The Coalition for Secular Government seeks to educate the public about the necessary secular foundation of a free society, particularly the principles of individual rights and separation of church and state.

Currently, my primary aim with the Coalition is to promote secular government in Colorado by fighting the proposed "Definition of a Person" Amendment (a.k.a. Amendment 48) to the Colorado constitution. However, I urge people outside Colorado to join the fight for secular government. Every state in the union is violating the separation of church and state in ways worthy of opposition.

So if you agree with CSG's mission and wish to actively promote secular government, you can subscribe to CSG's Activists e-mail list. To do so, you must aim to engage in some form of activism for secular government at least once per month. Activism can be as easy as posting web comments, forwarding e-mails, and speaking to friends about the importance of secular government.

However, if you'd just like to keep informed about CSG issues and activities, you can join the News e-mail list.

Also, I'll be updating CSG's blog, Politics without God, about three times per week. I have a few good posts up already; comments are welcome.

(As will be evident to some, the Coalition for Secular Government is modeled on Lin Zinser's very effective group Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. The two organizations are not affiliated, however.)

Five Great American Paintings (Part III)

By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This next installment discusses the third of five paintings that I consider to be among American painter Norman Rockwell's greatest artistic achievements.

Lincoln the Railsplitter (1965)

The power of art rests in its ability to encapsulate the essence of a thing, often in a way that would otherwise be quite difficult to explain in plain words. For example, a philosopher can talk about human virtue--its source and its central role in our lives--but an artist possesses the ability to show virtue; that is, to quantify it and make it real before the viewer. It is in this way that art serves as a crucial spiritual compass, guiding man toward his proper path, inspiring him to persevere when confronted with adversity. Norman Rockwell achieved as much through his 1965 depiction of Abraham Lincoln as a young man in his painting "Lincoln the Railsplitter."

Again, squelching what we know about Lincoln's life and focusing only upon what Rockwell presents in his depiction, we see a tall, lean and strong man from the vantage point of almost ground level. The man, perhaps in his early twenties, is dressed in the simple attire of a common laborer. He carries a large ax in one powerful hand; a thick book is gently cradled in the other so he can study it as he walks. He carries a coat draped over his arm; he is prepared for colder weather. A red bandana is tucked into his front pocket, at the ready for him to use it to wipe the sweat from his brow as he works. A plumb-bob hangs from his suspenders; his work, while manual labor, nevertheless requires a tool that ensures accuracy and precision.

All the while, the gray fall sky accents the man's giant silhouette. In the background, one sees a simple log cabin with a faint trace of smoke emanating from the chimney; fuel for this fire demands work and neither is wasted wantonly. In the foreground, a simple split-rail fence marks a boundary; this is private property. Two stumps of felled trees mark the extreme foreground. Perhaps the man cut these trees down himself with his ax; this settlement is the product of hard work performed recently.

Yet of all the elements Rockwell presents before us, it is the eyes of this man that most command our attention. Almost closed, they reveal the focus of a man deep in thought; if you walked by him, he might not even notice you ensconced in his book as he is. The man walks with a dual purpose, but it is the discovery of new ideas though his book that indicates his primary goal.

The magnitude of Rockwell's artistic identification is made all the more clear if one envisions the man without his book, instead relying strictly upon his physical prowess to secure his place in life. With his ax carried as a latent weapon, we might even evaluate him as a threat. Instead, with his book in hand and his focus firmly upon it, we see a man working diligently to make something better of himself.

Adding what we know of Abraham Lincoln's history to the image presented before us, we see in Rockwell's image the essential attributes of the man whose knowledge and wisdom would serve to preserve the American union and liberate the slaves.

Rockwell, in the space of his canvas, shows us that knowledge is power and that even a man from the most humble of circumstances has the ability to shape his own mind, character and destiny. In another culture, the man presented might be a mere brute, yet his by his pose and the tranquil background that Rockwell presents, we are instead shown that under the Pax Americana, this man can choose to master his life though his mind and that he rises solely though the strength of his own efforts. He may face a struggle, but it is not a bitter struggle; he can prevail, and so can we.

Previous installments:
Part I: The Scoutmaster
Part II: The Homecoming Marine
Next installment: The Problem We All Live With

Quick Roundup 344

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

You can't fix what is inherently broken.

Jim Woods has a couple of posts up about something I've been mulling off and on lately: The silly premise, increasingly evident among Republicans, that we can make government violations of individual rights "work" if we only tweak them enough.

At the first link, we have a Republican congressman calling for "reform" of government entitlement programs. At the second, we have Newt Gingrich leading the charge, not to abolish all restrictions on production and trade, but merely to tap into proven oil reserves presently kept off-limits, arbitrarily, by federal law (while leaving federal power to continue doing so intact). Given Gingrich's new enthusiasm for Green causes, this smacks of little else than Clintonian triangulation.

The Republicans failed as advocates of capitalism decades ago, when they refused to identify and get behind the full government protection of individual rights (on which capitalism depends) and its moral basis, the fact that every man's life is an end in itself.

In the past, when the Republicansy did more often seem to want a freer economy, they were still easily thwarted by altruists who protested that others "depended" on various government programs. Since they avoided the moral high ground, even when you'd initially hear talk of abolishing a government program or a cabinet post, it never materialized.

Now, Republicans rarely talk about capitalism, but usually focus on making government programs "work". But what does "work" mean coming from the mouth of someone who does not understand that the proper purpose of the government is to protect individual rights? Your guess is as good as mine. What becomes clear when one does understand the proper purpose of government, however, is that any reform of a program whose entire purpose is to violate individual rights is merely a cosmetic change.

There is only one way to "fix" government interference in the economy, and that is to abolish it altogether.

Oh, and speaking of the Republicans and individual rights, here's a chance to remind that party of that idea.

A Movie Scene Worth Watching

This smolders and smokes -- and I'm saying that even after having to hold the speaker up to my ear while the cat rubbed his head against it the whole time. The volume problem, I suspect is on my end, so don't let that stop you....

Two Different Uses of the Word "Power"

A Republican or two could stand to read Brian Phillips' short outline of the difference between political power and economic power.

The difference between political power and economic power is the difference between the coerced and the voluntary, between the choices of political officials and the choices of individuals.The difference between political power and economic power is the difference between the coerced and the voluntary, between the choices of political officials and the choices of individuals.

The reaction of your audience upon learning (or being reminded of) this may be friendly or hostile, but in either case, you are discouraging the evil and encouraging the good when you make this clear. Sometimes, you will succeed in changing minds, and sometimes, your words will even encourage someone else already on the side of freedom.

-- CAV

Dennis Miller on Global Warming

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Dennis Miller scathingly attacks global-warming hysterics, those Al Gore groupies he aptly names "the world is flat and hot society." The audience sounds a bit hestitant to laugh at times--maybe because any heretical comments against global warming is so politically incorrect. But there's no mistaking his message.

FREE TRADE PUBLICATIONS AND DOWNLOADS

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

If you are business professional, field expert or industry specialist and want to get free trade magazines, white papers, downloads and podcasts, check out NetLine Corporation and TradePub.com. [Hat tip to Anita Campbell of Small Business Trends.] Here is an excerpt from Anita Campbell's post, Monetize Your Website or Blog by Offering Trade Magazines:

Why I use TradePub

I’ve had a TradePub storefront for several years now. I don’t participate in many affiliate programs (even though I get 3 or 4 requests a week to do so). But this program I have found valuable and worth sticking with for almost 4 years. Here’s why:

* Your visitors get valuable B2B magazines without having to pay a dime (they will appreciate that!).
* You earn a little money every time one of your readers gets a new magazine subscription, white paper, etc. It helps subsidize the many hours you put into your blog or website. (SmallBizTrends.com, 07/13/08.)

Anita Campbell points out an interesting aspect of using this service, you could get a better picture on what your readers are interested in by checking out the online control center at RevResponse.com. By looking at the visitors' different requests for material, I will get a list of the popular items and with this information it would help it me to come up with topics to write on my blog.

Here are some examples of publications that I think look interesting to explore further:

The Scientist

The Scientist is the magazine for life science professionals. For 20 years The Scientist has informed and entertained life scientists everywhere. Our target audience is active researchers that are interested in maintaining a broad view of the life sciences by reading articles that are current, concise, accurate and entertaining.

Nutraceuticals World

It has been our mission from the beginning to provide our readers with the most relevant information as it relates to the nutraceuticals marketplace.

Supply & Demand Chain Executive

Supply & Demand Chain Executive (formerly iSource Business) provides comprehensive coverage highlighting business strategies trends and issues on supply chain management. The magazine explores each area of the global enabled supply chain including order/demand capture, sourcing, procurement, fulfillment, logistics, payment, CRM, consulting, information sharing, financing. It also provides the most advanced and detailed information so that industry professionals can stay informed.

World Trade

Monthly, World Trade examines each sector of world trade - transportation, logistics and supply chain management, technology, finance and trade services, and domestic and international economic development. Emphasis is on executive interviews and in-depth company profiles designed to assist our readers in making their businesses more profitable.

Website Magazine

Until now, there has not been a magazine that caters exclusively to the business of running a website. Website Magazine has tapped premier talent in the Internet industry for our content and each and every issue will contain practical advice and insights for website owners.

White paper, Security: The Wireless Revolution is Here by Motorola.

Learn to address security risks in wireless handheld computing systems with a solution that provides end-to-end security.

Marketing brief, Social Media Marketing: 12 Essential Tips for Success by Motivelab.

Learn how to effectively engage customer communities with a new, social marketing mix. With all the hype surrounding social media and consumer–generated content, marketers need clear and simple information to make sense of this new and powerful trend.

If you take action and fill out the application forms for the stuff that is matching your interests and skills, you will learn new things, be updated of what is going on in your area of expertise and therefore stay ahead of the competition. At the same time, you will support my future blogging. I want to send you a thank you note in advance and I wish you all the best with your new source of information.

Prager's False Equation

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

Dennis Prager, whom I have criticized here on several occasions for dishonestly equating secularism with leftism, has just penned a column against gay marriage in which he claims that it is wrong to equate opposition to gay marriage with opposition to interracial marriage. On top of this -- and much more important -- his whole argument rests on yet another false equation of his own.

Prager, like the vast majority of society and most moral thinkers before him, equates altruism, the belief that man exists to serve others, with morality, the practice of the rules for proper conduct. In fact, altruism is only a type of morality and it is detrimental to man's life at that. Ironically, Prager's own argument, as much surface plausibility as it will have to most people, can help us see that last point, so let's consider it briefly.

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not. [bold added]

Men and women, unlike, say whites and blacks, differ in fundamental ways that make accommodation of those differences moral and practical. So far so good. But it is important to keep in the back of one's mind the following question: "What has this to do with how two consenting adults choose to lead their own lives?"

[N]o religious or secular moral system ever advocated same-sex marriage. Whereas advocating interracial marriage was advocating something approved of by every religious and secular moral tradition of America and the West, advocating same-sex marriage does the very opposite -- it advocates something that defies every religious and secular moral tradition. Those who advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral. They have no problem doing this because they believe they are wiser and finer people than all the greatest Jewish, Christian and humanist thinkers who ever lived. [bold added]

Let's set aside, for the sake of argument, the question, important though it be, of whether a moral code accepted absent (or even contrary to) evidence and logic even can provide meaningful opposition to bigotry, racial or otherwise. The supposed merits of "Judeo-Christian values" are merely a smokescreen for an even greater crime against the truth.

Prager's argument here boils down to something like, "Everybody else opposes same-sex marriage. Who are you to say otherwise." Or: " You are immoral if you hold that two consenting adults who happen to be gay and wish to form an exclusive, life-long legal commitment to one another should be able to do so."

This is despicable. This is dishonest. And this is an example of what one great moral thinker, Ayn Rand, named the argument from intimidation. Rand describes the argument from intimidation as follows.

[It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false." (The Virtue of Selfishness, 139)

You will note further, from the book title, that Ayn Rand was a rare moral thinker: She opposed the idea that man is a sacrificial animal and upheld the idea that one's life is, properly, an end in itself. Not only that, she proposed a viable, rational alternative to altruism: Egoism. (She often referred to it as "selfishness", a word she frequently noted was almost always misused by altruists.)

Even if we grant most moral thinkers the benefit of the doubt as specialists in their field, the question remains: "What if they were wrong?" The Judeo-Christian values Prager squawks about like a parrot didn't save Galileo from persecution when he dared to defy all the past "experts" on the question of whether the Earth or the Sun was at the center of the Solar System. Not only that, but that historical episode shows the true worth of subordinating one's own judgement to the wisdom of the crowd, as Prager would have us do here. Where would we be without rare, independent individuals like Galileo?

So much for that part of Prager's "argument".

But so far, Prager's altruism has only been implicit in the sense that his moral authorities all profess altruism. That's okay, though, because Prager makes sure to remind us that he feels that we don't own our own lives:

[T]o oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us -- society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called "marriage." [bold added]

Really? I was laboring under the delusion that my life was my own and your life your own, and that we could both benefit by trade so long as we each respected one another's right to live the other's life as he best sees fit -- that we could enhance our lives by participating in a society. But I see that we are really just pieces of a machine! Thanks for clearing that one up, Dennis my boy!

Although Ayn Rand, as far as I know, never explicitly stood up for gay marriage, she was an uncompromising advocate of the individual's right to live his own life by his own lights. From Dennis Prager's argument -- and every other argument I have ever seen against gay marriage -- I see that the fundamental issue is this: Does an individual have the freedom to live his life as he sees fit, so long as he does not violate the rights of other individuals? Prager's answer is, "No!"

This -- individual rights -- is the essential similarity (or "true equation" if you will) between gay marriage, racial equality before the law, and the relevance to the daily lives of this issue to everyone. Jim Crow laws violated the individual rights of nonwhites. Preventing committed gay couples by law from enjoying the same legal benefits enjoyed by straight couples violates the individual rights of gay couples. Both types of law set the very bad precedent that -- contrary to the proper purpose of government -- individual rights can be trumped by other considerations. There is no place in the law for the enforcement of any form of discrimination against the individual.

So, "society" calls for no gay marriage, according to Dennis Prager. I'm not gay, but if I don't stand up for this, who knows what Prager and his ilk will decide "society is predicated on" its members doing next? And when will he start issuing marching orders that do directly apply to me?

I reject the idea that I exist to serve others and to its enforcement by law. I will work for the day that that my inalienable right to live a proper life, as a free man, is protected by law.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 343

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

Bull Moose? Bull Something, Anyway.

I agree with Andrew Dalton that putting the animated corpse of Theodore Roosevelt into office isn't such a great idea. But this news is really just gilding the lily.

Senator John McCain in a wide-ranging interview called for a government that is frugal but more active than many conservatives might prefer. He said government should play an important "those in America who cannot take care of themselves."

...

He also expressed a willingness to deploy government power and influence where free-market purists might hesitate to do so and to consider unleashing military force for moral reasons.


...

"I believe less governance is the best governance, and that government should not do what the free enterprise and private enterprise and individual entrepreneurship and the states can do, but I also believe there is a role for government." [minor edits]

Hah! Given what McCain -- who admits to knowing diddly squat about economics -- considers "free enterprise" (Page search "Cap and Trade".), I find his last sentence morbidly amusing.

Blizzard of Hatred

Myrhaf discusses the spewing forth of venom from the left following Tony Snow's death due to cancer.

If you ever heard Tony Snow do a radio talk show, you know he was one of the most sweet-natured hosts ever. He never mocked or insulted anyone. You might disagree with him, but any fair person would have to judge him as a genuinely nice guy.

I agree with that, and the appalling things that are being said about him say much more about the people saying them than about Tony Snow.

I wonder how many of these same people drive around with bumper stickers like the one pictured?

Emotions such as hatred reflect how one subconsciously evaluates the facts of reality based on his implicitly-held philosophical premises. Hatred, being merely the opposite of love, can be a psychologically healthy emotion. For example, if something or someone (e.g., a vandal) threatens or harms a passionately-held rational value (e.g., a favorite painting), it would be bizarre not to feel hatred. On the other hand, wishing someone sick with cancer had suffered simply because one disagrees with him is to open a window to a very dark soul indeed. I agree with Myrhaf on this:

The people capable of writing this stuff are totalitarians in waiting. Like the Bolsheviks and the Nazis, all judgment, all morality must report to their collectivist politics. If someone can wish more suffering on a political enemy who died of cancer, do you think he would bat an eye at consigning his enemies to concentration camps?

Such slogans as "Hate is not a family value," may appeal to some with legitimate worries about religious fundamentalism or bigotry, but they also serve to smear people who do not accept left-wing orthodoxy, a fact which, as Myrhaf indicates, excuses the worst nihilistic behavior. Disagreeing with the left is not the same thing as irrationally hating everyone different from oneself.

Can we say, "Projection"? I knew you could!

The Lighter Side

Dismuke discusses the work of a favorite cartoonist and has embedded an example of his work as a YouTube video at his blog. Not only is it worth watching, it's an advertisement! Brilliant! (Pun intended.)

Hmmm. They're finally noticing?

This is news?

Democrat Obama and Republican McCain agree on a range of issues that have divided the parties under Bush.

On immigration, faith-based social services, expanded government wiretapping, global warming and more, Obama and McCain have arrived at similar stances -- even as they have spent weeks trying to amplify the differences between them on other issues, such as healthcare and taxes.

Even on Iraq, a signature issue for both candidates, McCain and Obama have edged toward each other.

The result is that in many areas of policy, the general direction of the next White House seems already set, even if the details are not.

And that direction is away from freedom, as Kyle Haight once pointed out very well. I have already lost in this election.

I was about to make a flippant remark about how the only thing up for a vote this year is what color socialist we'd get, but I remain undecided for now on whether I'll vote for Obama or abstain. (Just to be completely clear: One can vote for a candidate without supporting him. If I vote for President this year, that is definitely what I'd be doing.)

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Several corrections in second section.

TSA Stupidity and the Defensive Mindset

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Airline pilot Patrick Smith tells of the latest indignity and bureaucratic folly he had to endure at the hands of the TSA (Transportation Security Administration):

"You ain't takin' this through," she says. "No knives. You can't bring a knife through here."

It takes a moment for me to realize that she's serious. "I'm... but... it's..."

"Sorry." She throws it into a bin and starts to walk away.

"Wait a minute," I say. "That's airline silverware."

"Don't matter what it is. You can't bring knives through here."

"Ma'am, that's an airline knife. It's the knife they give you on the plane."

The whole thing is worth reading. Smith asks, "Do I really need to point out that an airline pilot at the controls would hardly need a butter knife if he or she desired to inflict damage?"

While stories of TSA stupidity abound, the more disturbing underlying issue is that Americans are becoming slowly acclimated to this defensive posture, which we adopted in the aftermath of 9-11.

Historian John Lewis writes about this defensive mindset in his superb article, "'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism":

Meanwhile, a state of siege is being more deeply entrenched inside America every day. We are losing the war by institutionalizing the loss of our freedoms, searching the sneakers of senior citizens in wheelchairs in order to avoid confronting bellicose dictatorships overseas. In the minds of many people, the Bush administration's allegedly "offensive" strategy has discredited the very idea of genuinely offensive war for American self-interest, which it pledged to fight, and then betrayed to its core. Our soldiers come home maimed or dead, and military offense, rather than timidity, takes the blame. To compensate for our weakness overseas, we are building electric fences and security barriers to keep the world out, accepting the medieval ideal of walled towns under constant threat of attack, rather than destroying the source of such threats.

Lewis correctly points out that we will never defeat Islamic Totalitarianism if we maintain our current cringing, apologetic, defensive posture towards them. Instead, America must have the moral confidence to know that it is proper to take the fight to them, with the goal of destroying the threat they pose.

For more details, I highly recommend reading the entire article from the Winter 2006-2007 issue of The Objective Standard.

Southwest Airlines Secrets of Success

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I like Southwest Airlines quite a bit, so I was interested to see this article describing their plans for expansion at a time that other airlines are reeling from rising fuel costs:

Its competitors among the network carriers -- American, United, Delta, Continental, Northwest and US Airways -- are shrinking passenger capacity by more than 10 percent and grounding hundreds of aircraft starting in the fall. Southwest will add a handful of daily flights. It will take delivery of another dozen aircraft next year and still plans to grow by 2 to 3 percent.

How can Southwest pull off this move? Read the full article, "Southwest Airlines' Seven Secrets for Success", to learn more.

The Psychological Pyramid Scheme of Altruism

By Paula Hall from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Often, when I am trying to explain to someone why it is improper to tax people for others' benefit, no matter how desirable that benefit might be, I get the response: "But I'm willing to pay taxes for that!" This often happens in the context of health care -- people tell me they don't mind being taxed for health care, and wouldn't mind being taxed more if it meant universal coverage. So I wonder: why do so many people find it easy to agree to be taxed to help other people, to provide welfare? In Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson (which I recommend for its readability, although the philosophy is often incorrect), the single lesson he teaches is: people only see the immediate (single) consequence in front of them, but don't look at the many diffuse repercussions of a decision. So one answer is: a taxpayer might agree to be taxed to provide for others' medical care, caring only that others are taxed to provide that taxpayer with medical care and not worrying about the fact that government finance of something means government control of something -- and government control of a thing properly left private means government destruction of that thing. Many, many people really want the cake now, even at the expense of destroying the ability to make cakes in the future.

But I think there's a deeper level why people agree to it. The argument that socializing medicine will destroy it is so rational and sound that I think we need to look for a deeper psychological reason why people evade the truth of it. And I think it has to do at least in part with a particular aspect of altruism identified by Ayn Rand: namely, that it is impossible to consistently practice altruism. What is the effect of adopting a moral code impossible to practice? A catastrophic loss of self-esteem. I believe that, rather than face such a catastrophic loss of self-esteem, people will evade the facts that bring them face to face with that loss. I think this is a possible explanation of why people agree to be taxed to provide welfare to others. I explain more below -- hopefully, without lapsing into "psychologizing."

When a person directly asks another for alms -- in this case, for medical care -- the altruist ethics demands that whoever is asked to contribute do so to the limit. "To each according to his need." If a patient in the hospital directly asks a strange visitor for $10, perhaps this visitor, if also an adherent to the altruist ethics, cannot help but think that he or she could afford much more. And maybe this altruist also can't help knowing that there is more than one patient in the hospital that needs help paying medical bills -- maybe this altruist should be giving $10 dollars to each financially needy patient in the hospital. Perhaps the altruist can't avoid the knowledge that his ethics require him to give to his absolute limit. Being face to face with a request to live up to his altruist ethics starts the altruist on a train of thought that ends with divesting himself of every value he has ever worked for and, deep in his heart, he knows he has earned. Whether or not the altruist gives the $10 requested of him, he is stuck with the guilt of knowing that he is a hypocrite: the reason he gives the $10 is identical to the reason he must give away all of his money. And he knows he will not and cannot do it, because he wants to live and enjoy his life. The guilt must be crushing.

On the other hand, being taxed for something doesn't bring an altruist face-to-face with his guilt over his failure to actually live by the altruist ethics. If the altruist agrees that everyone must be taxed, he can, in a way, feel that he is giving more than $10. If everyone gives $10, then that's hundreds of millions of dollars. If the altruist supports EVERYONE giving ten dollars, he gets to support giving needy patients, as a group, hundreds of millions of dollars.

So he gets to feel virtuous.

That other people might, in good conscience, consider themselves free of any obligation to engage in charity, is immaterial.

People really do need to feel they are right. It might be the most basic need. Ayn Rand has identified pride as the sum of all virtues. It's because pride has to do with making yourself a worthy subject of effort. If you aren't worthy of effort, you aren't worthy to live, because man's life requires sustained effort. But to be worthy of effort, you have to be a valuable, good person. Which means: you have to be a MORALLY good person.

Forcing altruism on others is the only way for an altruist to feel morally good, because no-one can consistently practice altruism. Since you can't actually practice it, your only hope is to counterfeit it and evade the fact of your counterfeiting. But it's hard to evade something right in your face, such as being confronted with a beggar asking for alms. It's easier to evade something less concrete. The person asking an altruist for money directly makes an altruist feel horrible because she is faced with a concrete instance of how painful her morality is. But what's most concrete about taxes is: for the price of $10, you can feel like you're contributing hundreds of millions. Instead of the road to hell being paved with good intentions, the road to heaven is.

No one can practice altruism. Anyone can intend to practice it. Anyone can claim credit for intending to practice it, especially when every other person who shares that moral concept is hoping to get away with the same self-swindle. It's one big psychological pyramid scheme.

Godspeed Mehbooba Andyar!

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Wealth Redistribution

By softwareNerd from Software Nerd,cross-posted by MetaBlog

After bailing out Bear Stearns' creditors a few months ago, this weekend the U.S. government decided to bail out the creditors of "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac".

The government's argument goes like this: these firms -- Bear, Fannie & Freddie -- are solvent but not liquid. Since they are solvent, their assets will finally be realized, and will be enough to pay off their liabilities. However, today, there is no market (or a poor market) for some of their assets. So, they cannot meet their short-term liabilities today. The situation, the government says, is analogous to a run on a well-capitalized bank, where the bank cannot meet 100% of its short-term liabilities on demand, but could if given some years.

Also, the argument goes, failure will have a "domino effect". If the government does not bail out Bear Stearns, the confusion that could ensue would bring down much larger firms. Then, one might be faced with the government bailing out someone much bigger, say Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Oops, they just did, anyway!

That's the pro-intervention argument. However, if these firms are so obviously in good shape, then why doesn't some other company step in. True, J.P. Morgan did step in to take over Bear Stearns, but only with the government guaranteeing about $29 billion in credit.

Who is the government though? It is you and me. However, in terms of tax-money, it is the big taxpayers in the country: the rich pay most of the taxes. So, consider this: Warren Buffet used to be a large shareholder in Fannie Mae. Then, back in 2000/2001, he sold out almost all his shares in the company. Commenting that he was uncomfortable with the risk, he said, "We're never sure if there is an iceberg situation or not. We figured we'd never see it until it's too late."

Well, Mr. Buffett, you thought you were getting out of Freddie and Fannie, but we voters are putting you right back in. Except, while we use your tax money to take the risk you refused to take, if things work out, we'll spend the profits on "No Child Left Behind".

No, I'm not sympathetic to Buffett, because he buys into this crappy philosophy as well. However, I use him to illustrate wealth-redistribution. Take from Buffett and other rich tax-payers, and pay to shareholders and creditors of Bear Stearns, Freddie and Mac. For the xenophobes among us, remember, this means paying to lots of Japanese and Chinese who thought that these U.S. companies were solid.

As for the "common man" like me, I probably won't be hit much more on taxes, but the when government creates new money, the deficit goes up and inflation rises. Inflation acts like a tax.

Liberal Hatred

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

If you ever heard Tony Snow do a radio talk show, you know he was one of the most sweet-natured hosts ever. He never mocked or insulted anyone. You might disagree with him, but any fair person would have to judge him as a genuinely nice guy.

So let's take a look at some of reaction to his death from those paragons of morality, the reality based community, the benevolent, bleeding heart liberal-leftists.

Liquidstoke, a diarist at Daily Kos writes:

I'm sorry but it just sickens me to read diary after diary of silly, bleeding-heart little condolensces to Snow and his family.

I swear some of you weak-kneed progessive brethren of mine have no clue about the vicious nature of the ideological battle we are in. When a bad guy dies, we should rejoice, not sing his praises of wish him anything by scorn.

There is a fundamental reason why the progress/liberal movement is so often impotent in delivering effective blows to the right-wing machine-- it has to do with "toughness".

Tony Snow was a co-conspirator in probably the largest know fraud ever perpetuated and executed on the American public by it's own elected executive branch.

He was Fox news anchor in the likes of Hannity, Cavueto, & Wallace. This guy was a practiced liar and propagandist before he ever stepped foot into the White House Press briefing room. The precise reasone Bush chose him was for his ability to so effectively lie and dance around tough questions that the American people demanded answers to.

So now he's dead. I said "good riddance" and hell, some of your are falling over each other to condem me for it...

But you know what? I DON'T GIVE A FUCK what you think of my "heartless" comments, because what i see is a parade of soppy condolensces for a co-criminal that far outpaces and far outnumber any conversations about the death of our own innocent citizen soldiers nor the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Disgusting....

How do we win this generational ideological battle when we've got silly sissies on our side wailing over a another scumbag's death?

I suppose when Karl Rove kicks the bucket, i'll have to endure more of the same weepy, hysterical, gullible eulogies....

(HT: LGF)

Little of this screed has anything to do with reality, but it is interesting that Liquidstoke makes the "ideological battle" the standard for moral judgment. To the left morality is essentially collectivist and statist. It is because conservatives (supposedly) oppose socialism -- because they are not as willing as the left to use the power of the state toward altruist ends -- that they are evil.

When it comes to personal morality, leftists are relativists and generally lack passion about the matter; but get to politics and they spit fire and brimstone as well as any Baptist preacher (if in cruder language).

Patterico finds the following comments on a Los Angeles Times piece:

There is special place in hell for Mr. Snow. As a co-conspirator of the Bush administration, I have no special sympathy for him. I only wish his suffering were more prolonged.

I hope he suffered at the end. Just a terrible person.

CANCER WAS TOO GOOD FOR HIM
HOPE IT WAS PAINFUL.
NOW FOR THE REST OF THIS SCUMMY ADMINISTRATION. COME ON CANCER, DO YOUR GOOD WORK..

You might get some of this nastiness on the right from time to time, but it is much more common on the left. The people capable of writing this stuff are totalitarians in waiting. Like the Bolsheviks and the Nazis, all judgment, all morality must report to their collectivist politics. If someone can wish more suffering on a political enemy who died of cancer, do you think he would bat an eye at consigning his enemies to concentration camps?

Modern philosophy has been at war with reason for centuries, and it has won the war (for now). When reason is no longer practiced, it is replaced by force. We see in the ugly quotes above people who are ready to move on to the next stage, that of force.

John McCain: Pseudo-Maverick II

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Senator John McCain is a political pseudo-maverick because, in reality, he subscribes to every major fallacy at large in contemporary Western culture.

He believes, with Senator Barack Obama - and the term believes cannot be overemphasized - in man-made global warming.

He believes, with Obama, in "voluntary" servitude as the price of American citizenship and as the cure-all of the nation's ills.

He believes, with Obama, that the West's Islamic enemies can be bargained with and neutralized if "preconditions" are first established.

He believes, with Obama, in the efficacy of government regulation of the economy.

He believes, with Obama, in the abridgement and/or violation of the freedom of speech in the name of protecting the feelings or minds of children, religionists, and other groups "sensitized" by multiculturalism and political correctness.

He believes, with Obama, that the country should go in a "new direction," and that all Americans should pitch in to move it in that direction.

So, what is the difference between them? As mentioned in Part I, only the speed with which Obama, McCain, and their respective Parties wish to reach the goal that remains unnamed or repressed in all their minds: an American-style fascist state. Obama and his Democratic ilk, in the shrill style of their hippie and Yippie predecessors, want to accomplish it now. McCain and his Republican ilk, in the traditional "Grand Old Party" style, wish to sneak up to it on tiptoe.

Given their premises, given their distance from the American people and the principles behind the Declaration of Independence and the original Constitution, both Parties are working towards the same "Führer."

Thomas Sowell, syndicated columnist and one of the most articulate observers of the political scene, in his July 8 Capitalism Magazine article, "Republicans for Obama," notes that many conservative Republicans find Obama attractive as presidential material because of his recent "refining" of his position on a number of issues, "as he edges toward the center, in order to try to pick up more votes in November's general election."

"The man has become a Rorschach test for the feelings and hopes, not only of those on the left, but also for some on the right as well."

But, why is that? Sowell cites a number of reasons for the defections, many of them true, but he overlooks the governing reason: Obama's leftist/altruist positions resonate and mesh with the traditionalist/altruist positions of the conservatives. As Obama and McCain move towards each other and the "center," each will shed his "maverick" persona, Obama a little less so than McCain. But by November it will be difficult for voters to distinguish any major differences between them. Obama will have the advantages of his relative youth (with echoes of John F. Kennedy) and having been "nominated" by the news media. And, he sounds more sincere than his Republican rival.

Let us compare McCain and Obama's statements on the issues.

National or Universal Service:

On December 3, 2007, McCain, appearing at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester, stated:

"I hope that you'll go see other candidates and get involved in the political campaign and be involved in public service. And if you remember anything I said tonight, please remember there's nothing nobler than serving a cause greater than your self-interest."

On July 2, 2008, Obama stated at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs:

"That's the bet our Founding Fathers were making all of those years ago - that our individual destinies could be tied together in the common destiny of democracy; that government depends not just on the consent of the governed, but on the service of citizens....Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it."

The Progressive Policy Institute provides a concise and revealing history of the extortionate means, ends, and scope of "voluntary" universal conscription, together with the role of its principal advocates, including John McCain's.

Global Warming:

Never mind the effects of sunspot activity or the cyclical nature of the atmosphere over millennia or the negligible contribution of man to "global warming"; never mind the proofs and testimony of climatologists that man has little or nothing to do with global warming or cooling, or the ample evidence that the vaunted computer models predicting catastrophic warming (or cooling) are just so much Lysenkoesque jiggery-pokery. The collectivist premises of all the candidates and all our policymakers, including President Bush, McCain and Obama, compel them to discard reason, ignore evidence, and advocate government "action" to combat global warming. This is policymaking based on science by consensus.

Because so many papers and articles published in print and on the Internet have exploded the whole fallacy of man-made global warming - papers and articles ignored by or unknown to politicians and the news media, and certainly countered by "warmists" with either suppression or ad homina attacks on their authors - the occasional "inconvenient truth" comes through, such as in this Daily Telegraph (London) column of July 10, "Our Leaders are in carbon-cloud cuckoo land." The article focuses on the empty, unrealistic pledges made by the leaders of the G8 summit this month in Japan.

After reporting that, in general, there is no solid correlation between rising CO2 or "greenhouse gas" levels and global warming, and that, in fact, global temperatures have flattened out and are even decreasing, Christopher Booker notes:

"Yet just when such huge question marks are being raised over the 'CO2 equals warming' theory, our politicians have swallowed it whole, as an act of blind faith - using it to justify such massive costs to our economy that our whole way of life seems destined to change significantly for the worse." [Italics mine.]

Obama has had little to say about global warming, other than incidental references to the necessity "saving our planet" and creating an "Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects." He has a different notion of "climate change," that is, of extinguishing the climate of relative freedom enjoyed by Americans today by putting them to work in a variety of statist and collectivist causes.

McCain, however, has, like the G8 leaders, swallowed the fraud of man-made global warming whole. Aside from advocating the same system of "cap-and-trade," emission offsets, and emission permit auctions adopted by the European Union - a system that has accomplished precisely zero except to spawn fresh new categories of bureaucracy, corruption, fraud, thievery and unconscionable waste - McCain endorses the construction of more nuclear power plants, not because they are more efficient and dependable sources of power, but because they have been proven to be environmentally friendly and could be tools to combat global warming. And in a speech on May 12 at the Vestas Wind Technology Company in Oregon, he outlined his climate change policy, emphasizing that

"Our government can hardly expect citizens and private businesses to adopt or invest in low-carbon technologies when it doesn't always hold itself to the same standard. We need to set a better example in Washington by consistently applying the best environmental standards to every purchase our government makes."

Which in effect would be an open invitation to repeat the scandals of $50 hammers and $1,000 screwdrivers. And million dollar wind turbines. McCain proposes to spend federal billions to "develop promising technologies, such as plug-ins, hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles, and hydrogen-powered cars and trucks."

"Like other environmental challenges - only more so - global warming presents a test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next." [Italics mine.]

In short, Americans should reduce their standard of living so that the next generation can exist by the chancy grace of wind turbines and expensive power sources that will drive everyone, including the next generation, into abject poverty. As for the only rational element of his proposed program, nuclear power, McCain could easily be talked or browbeaten out of it by the environmentalists he has chosen to patronize.

"Reform. Prosperity. Peace," reads a banner of McCain's campaign website. "I believe each and every one of us has a duty to serve a cause greater than our own self-interest....I hope that...you will see why I truly believe that I owe America more than she has ever owed me....I've spent my life in service to my country, and I've spent my life putting my country first....."

Now it's your turn, he is saying, to sacrifice and pursue a cause greater than your self-interest.

Everyone thought that John F. Kennedy's imperative, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country," was old hat. But Obama means it. McCain means it.

Come November, voters should send McCain, Obama, and Congress a reply that echoes John Galt's in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: "Get the hell out of my way!"

The final installment of this commentary will focus on McCain's positions on speech and the war.

The Importance of the Subject

By Roderick Fitts from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The January 2008 issue of the journal Social Philosophy and Policy had numerous papers focusing on the "Objectivism, Subjectivism, and Relativism in Ethics."[1] Among them was Objectivist philosopher Dr. Tara Smith's "The Importance of the Subject in Objective Morality: Distinguishing Objective from Intrinsic Value."

In this paper, Dr. Smith elaborates on philosopher Ayn Rand's view that the individual (the "subject") plays an important role in the generation and the instructions of an objective morality.

To appreciate what Dr. Smith is pointing out, consider the following examples:

(1) Tiger Woods and his accomplishments. Woods has deliberately sought a particular type of life as a professional golfer, and as we can all attest, has had an extraordinary amount of success in his efforts. He paid attention to facts relevant to his goal as a great golfer, such as the value of practicing his golf swing and buying effective golf equipment (or even changing his swing when it injures him).[2]

(2) John Allison, the chairman and CEO of BB&T bank. Allison drove towards a particular career, and, like Woods, is also very successful in his field, the banking industry. He identified certain business actions as practical, and engaged in them, including teaching his employees his personal value system, and funding courses and organizations in support of Capitalism.

These examples illustrate that seeking life makes certain actions, objects, and positions objective values or disvalues relative to certain facts of life's requirements and to an individual's goals and purposes. Not adequately practicing before an upcoming golf championship would be a disvalue for Woods, because it would decrease his chance of winning, possibly lessen his endorsements, and reduce his general ability as a golf player--which means: all things considered, it would be bad for his life. Increasing the economic value of BB&T's products would be a value for Allison, by contrast, because it would likely increase his company's success, increase shareholder value, and allow his company to buffer any future losses--meaning that it would be good for his life, fully considered. Objective values are needs that we should pursue because they are conducive to our lives, and they allow us to succeed at our chosen goal of living--this is Rand's basic depiction of objective values.

Another element of the objectivity of values Smith points out is that it is relational: while things or practices can benefit us, such as a better golf swing in Woods' case, they can only function as values if the person identifies them as beneficial--as worth the effort of gaining. This relational aspect of objective values highlights the crucial role that our free will plays. Certain biological facts make certain things beneficial and other things harmful regardless of our own thoughts and opinions towards them, but our thoughts do matter in regards to considering some benefits as "values," because our conclusions will determine if we act towards what we believe to be values.

We need to seek beneficial objects to enhance our lives, and many of these beneficial things can only be gained by our deliberate choices and actions--meaning that in order to be successful, we must know how to choose and what to choose. In Smith's (and Rand's) view, this is precisely why we need morality. "A moral code," Smith writes, "identifies the kinds of ends that a person should seek (values) and the kinds of actions that he should take to secure values (virtues)."[3]

This understanding of how the individual's choice to live and his pursuit of identified beneficial things is (partly) what gives rise to objective values (and morality) is one of Smith's points in the essay.

The other point highlighting how pivotal the individual is in an objective morality centers around the concept of "objectivity" itself.[4] In short, our thoughts and choices don't automatically conform to reality, and so we discover that it is necessary to identify methods of thinking which take the facts into consideration (objective) and contrast them with methods which ignore or evade relevant facts (non-objective). For example, Woods changing his swing when it injured him is a professionally objective approach insofar as he paid attention to relevant facts (his physical condition, his previous golf approach, negative consequences of not changing his swing, etc.) in order to succeed in his goals.

The need to pursue values, coupled with the facts that we don't automatically pursue them and don't automatically know how to succeed, are the grounds for an objective morality--a morality that makes possible systematic guidance in determining if our actions conform to the facts and our goals, or if they don't.

It is the deliberate choice to live, the identification of certain beneficial things which one should pursue (objective values), and an objective approach to one's life-decisions that demonstrates the importance of the subject in an objective morality.

Before concluding, I'd like to point out one of the implications of this view of moral objectivity.[5] Namely, that Smith-Rand's view of morality places its function solely in the advancement of one's own life--it is egoistic.[6] This moral code is concerned with one's self-interest and how to realistically accomplish it. As Smith notes:

The question that a person faces, in aspiring to moral objectivity, is not how to escape his vantage point, either literally or figuratively, but how to make his view conform with reality. What is the nature of this thing that I am considering? And what sort of impact is it most likely to exert on my life? These are the principal questions that a person must address.[7]

A very illuminating essay, which may be of particular interest to those who think of an "objective morality" as a set of duties to be fulfilled in total disregard to one's interests.

References and Notes
[1] All of the essays in the January issue are available for free
viewing, and no registration required.

[2] The Truth About Tiger

[3] Tara Smith (2008). The Importance of the Subject in Objective Morality: Distinguishing Objective from Intrinsic Value. Social Philosophy and Policy, Cambridge University Press, 25: p. 132.

[4] For more on the concept of "objectivity," the Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on objectivity.

[5] Another implication Smith points out in the paper is that Rand's view of moral objectivity rejects a single list of values, identical for everyone (which is usually a characteristic of the moral objectivism position in philosophy). Many of the things Tiger Woods pursues in connection to his profession as a golfer are values for him, but probably are not values for John Allison, since he is in a different line of work. Similarly, the values they both pursue (organizations they support and career) legitimately differ. By "legitimate," I second Smith's remark that the "parameters defining the permissible range are themselves objective insofar as they are grounded in the natural requirements of human life" (Smith, "The Importance of the Subject," p. 143).

[6] See more on egoism in chapter 6 of Smith's book, Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality, and in this Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on Selfishness

[7] "The Importance of the Subject," p. 146

Technology can't pinch-hit, either.

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

In an article he wrote for Independence Day, Robert X. Cringely points out that technology is only as good as the people using it and indirectly reminded me of a couple of other related points.

After noting that newspaper ads account for a small and shrinking portion of real estate sales, Cringely looks at how the Internet has revolutionized house hunting.

It's not that newspaper ads work so poorly for selling real estate, it's that Internet advertising works so well. You can put more words on a web ad than you could ever put in the newspaper for the same money. You can put more and bigger pictures, virtual tours, Google maps. You can put Zillow virtual appraisals and links to lenders, home inspectors, and the local Chamber of Commerce. Internet house listings can be searched in a zillion ways that newspaper listings cannot. In the time it takes to find a house -- any house, maybe even the wrong house -- in the newspaper and then go see it, well in that amount of time using the Internet you can find the house, order an inspection, get a loan, and make an offer on the darned thing. It's like crossing house-hunting with air hockey.

But is it all good?

...

The theme of disintermediation -- of eliminating middlemen -- has been a driving force in the Internet for as long as commerce has been allowed on the web. But what happens when the middleman you just eliminated had as one of his or her jobs the task of keeping us from being ripped off? [bold added]

That's a profound point. At least part of what you're paying for by going through , say, a real estate agent, is the insight he can offer through his specialized knowledge and experience. The Internet gives you much of what you used to get, part from newspapers and part from real estate agents -- concrete information -- but it can't give you intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of buying or selling a house.

Or, at least it can't do so quickly enough if all you want to do is buy a house. Even if you found all the information, you'd still need to evaluate and integrate it all. And then you'd still lack practice in applying what you learned!

The greater the portion of raw information that someone provides as a service, the more the Internet threatens his traditional position. Newspapers had better find a way to make money besides selling ads for houses. But real estate agents can better adjust to the Internet because they still have intellectual capital to offer thanks to the principle of division of labor. We simply can't all be experts about everything.

In addition to exposing this limitation of the Internet, Cringely also brings up something that fits in with past observations I have made concerning the false promise of telecommunications technology as an aid to the cause of freedom. If you can't necessarily avoid getting ripped off in real estate by drinking market information from the Internet fire hose, you also can't secure your freedom simply by being able to communicate well with others who might also be dissatisfied with your government's politics. As noted in the last link, knowing what freedom is remains just one prerequisite to any such effort no matter how flashy the tools used to fight.

Indeed, when one fails to apply a coherent set of principles grounded in the facts of reality, he may not only get ripped off, he may also find that the value of all this technology has already been compromised by the state!

Take our current national economic mess, the so-called sub-prime mortgage crisis. I like to think that I'm not a subprime kind of guy, but pretending to work as I do (my kids think I TYPE for a living) the world may not always see me the way I would like to be seen. So last year, in what we didn't know were the waning and idyllic pre-subprime days, I tried to get a new mortgage. Of course I used the Internet to get the loan because, as we all know, when banks compete I win. And within a few days, without having to actually meet with or even speak to another human, I found myself offered a $336,000 mortgage.

It was SO easy. Fill out a few online forms, make some choices, and there I was, about to close that loan. But then I did an odd thing. I carefully read the papers I was about to sign (I'm one of THOSE people). And in that residential loan application, right on line something or other, was a number that didn't make any sense to me at all. It was labeled "total household income" and was almost twice the pitiful amount I actually earn.

From where did that number come? It certainly never came from me. Since my signature would be at the bottom of this application I wanted to make sure everything was correct, so I called the mortgage broker. For the first time we spoke. She was a very nice lady, too, and explained that number was the variable required for all the ratios to be correct so I could qualify for the loan.

"But it isn't true," I said.

"Do you want the loan or not?" she asked.

Not. [bold added]

Cringely correctly notes that, "Securitization of mortgages works just fine unless the mortgages are based on lies." But why is that so common? Alex Epstein showed some time back, that such carelessness is encouraged by the government's promise to bail fools like this lender out if too many "mistakes" like this get them into trouble. Perhaps we have an example here of "trickle-down government bailout crack".

In addition to having a layer of expertise stripped away, then, working through the Internet is shown to be fraught with the possibility that the person you are dealing with may have been encouraged by the government to put you into a potentially disastrous situation!

Time is money and the big advantage the revolution in communications technology gives us is that acquiring and managing information is far easier than it used to be, meaning that we ultimately save time and money doing certain things. We're spending less money on information, but as Ayn Rand once pointed out, extra money still can't think for us:

Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit.

Information technology is like having lots of extra money. This is a huge advantage, but it is also a huge opportunity to forget that the need to think remains.

-- CAV

If It Seems Too Good to Be True...

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

When I lived in New York, my roommate at the time -- let's call him Phil -- was approached by a stinking drunk on Second Avenue. The drunk asked him to buy a paper bag containing some rare coins for $100. Phil, sensing the goods were stolen and maybe he could rip off this drunk, took a look at the coins. He was no numismatist, but they were obviously old coins in those cardboard holders, with prices in the thousands written on them.

But there was something else written on the paper bag. "If found, please return to Dr. [name] for a reward." There followed a telephone number.

Phil was struck by pangs of conscience. He gave the bag back and told the drunk to call the number for the reward. The drunk would not have any of it: he wanted 100 bucks and he wanted it now.

Phil then convinced the drunk to let him call the number to get the reward. The doctor at the other end of the line, a woman, was relieved and thankful that Phil had found her lost coins that had been her father's and meant even more to her family than the thousands they were worth.

At this point the drunk got skittish and started to walk away. The doctor pleaded with Phil to give the drunk what he wanted and when she got there she would give Phil a reward of $400.

So Phil told the doctor what street corner he was on and described what he was wearing. Then he ran after the drunk and paid him $100 for the bag of coins. At this moment he felt quite pleased with himself -- not only had he been a Good Samaritan and secured the return of the doctor's coins, but he would make $300 that day. Not a bad day's work!

He waited for the doctor to arrive.

And he waited.

No doctor. Phil called the number again. Someone else answered and told him he had called a pay phone on the street.

Yes, Phil had been conned by some very smooth, big city confidence artists. He paid $100 for a paper bag full of trash.

I think he should have been tipped off by the note. Who writes on a paper bag full of rare coins, "return to so and so for a reward"? And who keeps rare coins in a paper bag?

Moreover, Phil should have remembered this basic rule: if a perfect stranger wants you to give him money now in exchange for more money later, no matter how good the deal sounds, you are being conned.

A Reminder for Objectivists

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A quick reminder for Objectivists, particularly undergraduate students:

The application deadline for the Objectivist Academic Center is July 30th. For anyone unfamiliar with the excellent education offered by the OAC, here's a brief description:

The OAC is a distance-learning program of the Ayn Rand Institute offering classes on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, as well as on methods of objective thinking and communication. The program offers a unique opportunity to study Ayn Rand's ideas in detail, under the guidance of ARI's staff intellectuals.

For more information, including application instructions, visit the web site of the Objectivist Academic Center.

Creationists in Europe

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Danish historian Peter Kjaergaard writes on the disturbing rise of both Christian and Muslim creationists in Europe. In his discussion of the slick, glossy Muslim book Atlas of Creation, he notes:

One of the most astonishing claims in the book is that Charles Darwin -- the quiet Victorian gentleman naturalist -- was responsible for the worst evils of the 20th century: racism, communism, fascism, Nazism, terrorism and, ultimately, 9/11.

I guess the Muslims weren't really the ones to blame for 9/11.

Kjaergaard concludes:

One thing is clear: creationism has indeed come to Europe and unfortunately, therefore, we have to take it seriously. We can't afford to be complacent, or imagine that creationism is just a bizarre and distant American phenomenon. Just as manipulative as the worst of American creationists, European creationists are hard at work and some of them have a lot of money... What we have seen so far is just the beginning.

All the more reason we need to fight for rational education here in America. If mysticism and faith become entrenched in American education, then there's no reason to believe that other Western countries will be somehow immune.

Rush Limbaugh

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The NY Times Magazine recently published an interesting profile of Rush Limbaugh. As someone interested in changing the culture for the better, I was interested to read about his history, methods, and influence. However, the most amazing bit is the reporter's description of Limbaugh's capacity to speak for nearly three hours extemporaneously:

Limbaugh's program that day was, as usual, a virtuoso performance. He took a few calls, but mostly he delivered a series of monologues on political and cultural topics. Limbaugh works extemporaneously. He has no writers or script, just notes and a producer on the line from New York with occasional bits of information. That day, and every day, he produced 10,000 words of fluent, often clever political talk.

Also, Limbaugh's influence is not just his direct influence on his listeners, as those listeners influence others by their own advocacy:

Limbaugh entertains, but he also instructs. He provides his listeners with news and views they can use, and he teaches them how to employ it. "Rush is an intellectual-force multiplier," Rove told me. "His listeners are, themselves, communicators."

Fascinating! I might say, "if only his ideas were better..." but the fact is that his example is a valuable lesson for those of us with better ideas.

The Attack on Oil Speculators: Shooting the Messenger

By Alex Epstein from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release
 
The Attack on Oil Speculators: Shooting the Messenger
July 11, 2008

Irvine, CA--Twelve prominent airline CEOs have just announced a new campaign, "Stop Oil Speculation Now"--the latest call for a government crackdown on the speculators who are allegedly to blame for high oil prices. "As unregulated speculators pocket billions of dollars at your expense, the price of commodities has increased out of proportion to marketplace demands," the group claims. "By adopting common-sense solutions, Congress can dramatically reduce the price of oil and gas, providing immediate relief for businesses and hard working Americans."

"Americans should reject this anti-speculator demagoguery," said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "The speculators bidding up prices today are not thieves who can effortlessly 'pocket billions of dollars at your expense.' They are investors who are risking their own money on their judgment that oil will become scarcer, and thus more expensive, in the future. If they are wrong, and their projections of future prices are artificially high, then they will take large losses. If they are right, then by bidding up prices now based on future projections, they are giving markets a vital warning about future oil supplies, and energy producers a vital incentive to invest in more energy production.

"It should be no surprise that speculators expect higher oil prices--because government policies around the world have given them every reason to be bearish on future oil supply. Eighty percent of the oil reserves in the world are nationalized, and much of the reserves in other countries, including the United States, are cut off from access thanks to environmentalist regulations. Our politicians call oil an 'addiction' and promise to eliminate it--despite the absence of any remotely viable large-scale alternative. Is it any wonder that speculators expect producers to produce less oil while consumers continue to demand more? And, given America's weak-dollar policy, is it any wonder that America's oil prices are increasing far faster than those of other countries?

"All of us, including airline CEOs, should demand that our government do only one thing about oil prices: get out of the market. This means rescinding its restrictions on oil production and scrapping its inflationary economic policies. It is morally unconscionable and economically destructive to demonize speculators for being the bearers of the bad news the government has caused."

###  ### ###

Mr. Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on business issues.

Mr. Epstein's Op-Eds have appeared in such publications as the San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Canada's National Post, and the Washington Times. He is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics. Mr. Epstein has been a guest on numerous nationally syndicated radio programs.

Alex Epstein is available for interviews.
Contact: Larry Benson          
E-mail: media@aynrand.org          
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 213

For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site at www.AynRand.org. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

                                                                                          RSS  

                                                                                          

                                                                                             

Five Great American Paintings (Part II)

By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

This second installment discusses the second of five paintings (now up one from the original four) that I consider to be among American painter Norman Rockwell's greatest artistic achievements.

The Homecoming Marine (1945)





To fully appreciate the genius of this painting, it is helpful to examine it not so much from the perspective of what one already knows about the subject (in this case, a US Marine returning from war against the Japanese Empire in the Pacific), but to instead focus on what the artist chooses to show us about his subject. Unlike a photographer, a painter has the complete power of selectivity in determining what is represented in his paining and how it is represented; as such, nothing is left to chance and it through the artist's deliberate choices that he is able to convey what he thinks is important about his scene. In art, it pays to focus on the artwork.

In this painting, Rockwell presents two boys and five adult men in a mechanic's garage; one of men, the youngest of the adults, wears a khaki military uniform and commands the rapt attention of those around him. Looking upon the background, one sees a newspaper article hung upon the wall identifying that this individual is both a garageman and a military hero; the phrasing indicating that the man is not a professional warrior but someone with a peaceable background who nevertheless served in the armed forces and performed admirably. A smaller version of the photo of the man used in the newspaper indicates that the inhabitants of this garage knew the man before his newsworthy exploits; the blue star on a red and white flag reflects a WWII tradition that indicates that he is close enough to them to be considered one of their own, even if his singularly red hair seems to indicate that he is not their outright son.

On the man's uniform he wears various ribbons for military merit, one of them being the Silver Star, America's third highest award given for gallantry in action against an enemy. His headgear is cocked back in his own personal style, again signifying his non-professional status in the military. In his powerful hands he grips a red and white Japanese flag; he does not clench the flag in a death-grasp, yet no one dares take this trophy from him. Rockwell presents the man in a reflective pause; his mouth is closed in silence and he does directly engage those around him with eye contact (even though he is clearly their center of their eyes). Instead, his face is focused outside the circle and he wears the expression of a man reflecting upon a grave matter; a matter that he himself has yet to fully reconcile.

The boy sitting to the man's right looks up at him, utterly captivated by the man's presence with his young hands squeezed together with white-knucked intensity. The blonde-haired boy standing across from the man leans against the workman's bench in a contrapposto post and presents a dumbfounded expression of shock. Two older mechanics are presented above the man, one sitting on the bench, his nearly-consumed cigarette held in his gently clasped as it burns down to its last embers. This mechanic is the only individual in the scene shown to be speaking, yet the position of his mouth indicates that he speaks faintly; that is, he speaks to the man with a tone that shows his understanding of the gravity of the man's experiences. The other mechanic stands over the man, tobacco pipe in mouth and with a soft smile on his face which seems to indicate both his interest and his pride. The last of the two men each circle the man, both older, one corpulent and uniformed in the garments of some local office of public service, the other ancient and frail, yet bent over with keen interest in the man.

When one combines all of the elements Rockwell represents in his panting with what one knows of the historical record, such as the fact that the Marines performed valiantly against a ruthless and determined enemy, that the Marines were a citizen army, and that those who served in combat would return to their peacetime lives but were nevertheless indelibly marked by their experiences on the battlefield, it is inescapable that Rockwell's Marine Homecoming is a brilliant examination of heroism and hero worship in America. One would be hard-pressed to imagine such a scene in Soviet art; the Soviets being far more interested in inserting some overtly political message into their art then to let a subtle scene such as Rockwell's go unmolested.

Furthermore, as much as Rockwell is known (and derided) for painting common scenes, there is nothing common about his Marine hero. The expression Rockwell represents belies a man who has endured extreme hardship and whose acclimatization back into civilian life may not necessarily be easy. Nevertheless, the man has the attention—and the admiration—of those who were part of his former life. He is their champion, and they do not run away from him. For those of us who admire Rockwell's work, neither do we.

Previous installment: The Scoutmaster
Next installment: The Rail-Splitter

Quick Roundup 342

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

Obama's "Message" Hasn't Changed? Indeed!

RealClear Politics headlines a story (by a lefty) about Obama's recent tacking to the right as, "Obama's Message Hasn't Changed." That's funny, since the message consists of nothing more than a promise of near-universal "change" -- except for the Earth's thermostat, of course. And the curious consistency.


Yesterday evening, my mind randomly tossed out the observation that the Democrats on the campaign trail sound an awful lot like the homeless/zombies in South Park's "Night of the Living Homeless".

Someone else, however, beat me to the punch long ago as the above YouTube video shows. But I'd have spared you that frontal view of Michael Moore at the beginning....

Social Networking as CB Radio

I ran into this Robert X. Cringely article on social networking awhile back that I noticed among some links of things I'd thought about blogging, but never quite got around to. Since a comment yesterday made the article interesting to me, I'll link to it now.

Z thinks that social networking could be used to support rebuilding the World Trade Center the right way. Sounds good to me, but I have to admit that I don't do social networking. Myrhaf thinks it's a waste of time and Cringely sees much of it as part passing fad, part bad business model.

Social networking has a lot of problems as both a business and a cultural phenomenon. To start with there is generally no true business model. This can vary a bit from application to application but most are vying simply for eyeballs and hoping for Google ads to pay the bills until Time Warner or News Corp make them an acquisition offer they can't refuse. That might be okay for Facebook or MySpace and maybe Linked-In, but there are more than 350 general-purpose social networks out there and I will guarantee you that no more than 5 percent of those will be still operating two years from today.

...

It's not that I don't see value to social networks, it's that I generally don't see ENOUGH value. Yes, keeping my address book synchronized with reality is nice, but isn't that likely to be shortly absorbed into the operating system or perhaps into networked applications like Gmail and Yahoo Mail? [bold added]

I'm too swamped to add something (on top of blogging) to (a) work, (b) getting ready to move across the country, and (c) finding a job. I have no plans to get involved in that time sink, but I am curious. If there are any social networkers out there, what say you? Is Cringely right? Is Myrhaf missing the big picture after having tried MySpace for awhile?

Whatever you say, if you comment at all, I think Z's idea has merit. So if you're a social networker, follow his advice and stand up for building a taller and better WTC!

Racism at Three!

Even though I attended a racially mixed grade school in Mississippi, I don't think I was really even aware of the existence of different races until about third grade. I suspect that my experience is typical, know that this would be easy to study, and can't imagine any child reaching a sufficient stage of cognitive development to even be a racist until at least second or third grade. (Not that racism has any intellectual merit, but you do first need to (a) be aware of racial classifications and (b) associate them with specific attitudes and behaviors.) In any event, the notion that someone could be a racist at age three is preposterous.

And yet, ...

The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care.

This could include a child of as young as three who says "yuk" in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food.

Andrew Dalton surmises, rightly, that, "There must be a special version of Poe's Law that applies to multiculturalists."

-- CAV

This post was composed in advance and scheduled for publication at 5:00 A.M. on July 10, 2008.

Updates: Added a missing hyperlink.

Think You Understand Objectivism?

By Greg Perkins from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Veteran or newbie, fan or critic, here's your chance to enjoy a real upgrade to your personal understanding of Rand's philosophy, your ability to live like ideas matter, and your facility in helping change our culture for the better!

The Objectivism Seminar is currently working its way through Dr. Leonard Peikoff's seminal book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. After wrapping up Chapter 1, we took a little break for OCON and assorted schedule interference, so now is a great time to catch up and jump in! Our next session will be Sunday July 27, 7:30pm Mountain.

I have to say that I'm really pleased with how our new meeting format is shaping up. Everyone seems to be growing and sharpening their understanding -- newer and more experienced students of the philosophy alike. Basically, we have been discussing just one section of the book each week (maybe 5-15 pages of reading), and then working over the material from several angles in discussion. Each meeting runs for about an hour and a half, and if you want to see (hear) what it is like, just visit the Objectivism Seminar's page at TalkShoe to listen or even subscribe to the podcasts for past sessions.

If you want to jump in, now is a great time: all you have to do is read Chapter 1, hopefully listen to the podcasts of the sessions for it, read at least the first section of Chapter 2, and show up for the next session in a couple of weeks!

John McCain: Pseudo-Maverick I

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Parade Magazine, the slick insert found in most metropolitan Sunday newspapers, on July 6 carried a feature, "What is Patriotism?" to mark the July 4th weekend. In it presidential candidates Senators Barack Obama and John McCain shared "their thoughts about our country."

Share them they did, and, quite predictably, they stressed a mutual theme: sacrifice, "giving back," and a "unity" that would make the first two actions palatable. Obama's piece was titled, "Sacrifice For The Common Good," McCain's, "A Cause Greater Than Self-Interest."

Obama's essay was a regurgitation of his boyhood experiences and a thinly disguised appeal to contribute to the "common cause." It was intended to counter claims that Obama is unpatriotic and that he secretly despises his country. And one sentence stands out for a significant omission:

"The greatness of our country - its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements - have resulted from the toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor, and quiet heroism of the American people."

What is missing is any reference to the freedom, political liberty, or individual rights that made the country's enormous wealth and scientific achievements possible. These ideas are largely absent from Obama's presidential agenda, except in instances of meaningless lip service to individual effort. The terms toil, struggle, restlessness, and quiet heroism, however, can be found in the speeches and harangues of past tyrants when they praised their slaves for their sacrifices and for the ones they were expected to make in the future.

So, instead of assuring anyone that he is patriotic and loves his country qua free country, Obama defines his patriotism and love of country by how much of a hospital ward/ welfare state/slave camp it can be, if only Americans would express their "love" for and "faith" in each other. His "patriotism" is exclusively of the altruist/collectivist kind. (When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, Stalin did not expect his slaves to fight for communism; he dubbed the contest the "great patriotic war" for Mother Russia.)

Freedom, individual rights and political liberty are also absent from McCain's essay. McCain (or his own ghost writer), however, had the arrogance to refer to a question posed by John Adams in July 1815 to Thomas Jefferson: "Who shall write the history of the American revolution?"

""Nobody,' responded Jefferson, suggesting that while writers could understand the facts, they might never grasp the sacrifices."

Jefferson suggested no such thing. Here is Jefferson's answer:

"Nobody; except merely its external facts. All its councils, designs and discussion, having been conducted by Congress with closed doors, and no member, as far as I know, having even made notes of them, these, which are the life and soul of history must for ever be unknown." [The balance of his answer to Adams' question is irrelevant here. Immediately following his answer, Jefferson, who probably paused to recollect that James Madison had transcribed in their entirety the deliberations of the Congress, then mentions that document, first published in 1840 by Henry D. Gilpin.](1)

In all of Jefferson's reply, the term sacrifice does not once occur, nor is it alluded to or even implied. To Adams and Jefferson, sacrifice was neither a moral imperative nor a touchstone of moral virtue. It did not automatically pop into their minds or rhetoric when discussing political means, ends, and values. For them, the fundamental issues were freedom versus tyranny, liberty versus slavery.

It is just the opposite with Obama, McCain, and every other career politician today. To a man, they are either utterly ignorant of those issues, or they dare not parse them in their own minds and public statements lest they open a can of worms of their own making. For many politicians, the American Revolution is as distantly foggy in their consciousness as the Peace of Westphalia or the Battle of Thermopylæ; for others, it is completely irrelevant to what they believe and claim are vital matters requiring more controls, intervention, and sacrifices of freedom.

For McCain to raise the issue of the American Revolution is a presumption that verges on sacrilege, because for all his purported "patriotism" for America, he is not by any measure a friend of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. His attribution of the principal role of "sacrifice" in the Revolution is a reflection on either his ignorance of the Revolution or his corrupted understanding of it, or both, a corruption and ignorance also responsible for the pandemic notion in the culture that the U.S. was founded as a "democracy," and not as a republic.

If Obama's political career and agenda can be said to be consistently statist and collectivist, then McCain's political career and agenda have been and continue to be bizarrely "nonpartisan." He portrays himself as a "maverick" in the Republican Party, that is, as an opponent of a complacent status quo. But being a political maverick is not inherently a good thing. Being "nonpartisan" - even when the two major political parties are so philosophically and ideologically bankrupt that the only fundamental difference between them is the speed with which either proposes to propel the country to full statism - means being consummately pragmatic, unprincipled, and open to whatever is perceived to "work."

McCain's positions comprise an eclectic potpourri that ranges from restrictions on freedom of speech to advocating environmentalism and man-made global warming to flip-flops on tax cuts and tax increases and advocating the construction of more nuclear power plants for environmental reasons. His endorsement of the Iraq war stems chiefly from an emotional commitment to the military, not from any rational assessment of the conflict. If it were not for his military background, it is likely that his criticisms of the U.S.'s altruistic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be dissimilar from Obama's, Clinton's or John Kerry's. For all his "straight talk" about Iran and terrorism, there is no reason to believe he would confront them any better than has President Bush. In that respect, if his Democratic critics are right, McCain would simply continue Bush's policies.

McCain, for example, worked for the normalization of relations between the U.S. and Vietnam - that is, for the moral sanction of the communist government that held him prisoner for over five years (and during which incarceration he displayed more character and intelligence than he has in politics). Is that any better or worse than President Bush's recent removal of North Korea from the "Axis of Evil" because the North Koreans disposed of a disused cooling tower and pledged not to continue its nuclear weapons program, a pledge made to another totalitarian regime, China?

Conservatives are not enthusiastic about McCain. They perceive him as straddling their camp and the liberals'. They will, however, endorse him as an alternative to Obama and a Democratic Party that smells victory in November and is high on the cocaine of possibly achieving their statist dreams. Ronald Kessler, writing for Newsmax on June 25 about the nature of conservative support for McCain, remarked:

"...[T]he fact remains that the prime motivator of conservatives is probably going to continue to be not John McCain but a fear of the consequences of a Barack Obama victory."

The conservatives are hoping that McCain will change his positions on his fraudulent "cap and trade" proposal and his refusal to advocate oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Region. And, they have forgiven him for his flip flop on the Bush tax cuts, now that McCain has proposed his own cuts and also a "tax holiday" on gas purchases. Kessler remarked:

"If you care about social conservative issues, the next president could replace one or two Supreme Court judges. That could mean Roe v. Wade could be overturned."

The conservatives' and McCain's anti-abortionist position is an unlikely companion to their ostensive "freedom of speech" position, given McCain's work with Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russell Feingold to pass the speech-abridging Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002. But a closer examination of their "pro-speech" position reveals that they are only concerned about the fate of conservative talk show hosts who might be jeopardized or even silenced by an Obama-inspired renewal of the Fairness Doctrine. All other claimants to freedom of speech, presumably, can take the hindmost, including atheists and anyone else prone to mouth, print or wardrobe malfunctions, not to mention pornographers, neo-Nazis, advertisers of abortion clinics, and any other individual, organization or expression of speech deemed by both Republicans and Democrats as undesirable or of questionable or irredeemable social value.

As for the wholly arbitrary strictures and prohibitions of the campaign finance law, conservatives have proven they are as myopically concrete-bound about them as the Democrats. The principle underlying the First Amendment should obliterate the absurd mental gymnastics that govern what may or may not be said and when, what may or may not be paid for and by whom during any election period, national, state or local. But there are no longer any moral giants in politics like Adams and Jefferson who can or are willing to grasp the fundamentality of principles, just charlatans, professional con artists and power lusters of diminished mental capabilities and short-term visions.

Nor are veterans' groups enthusiastic about McCain, although they, too, see him as the better alternative to Obama. A Daily Telegraph (London) article from July 6 underscores the ambivalence of these groups as they launch TV and print ads in support of McCain.

"...Pete Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, claimed it [the ad campaign] was not designed to support one candidate over another, but to support troops still serving in the field."

Most veterans, respecting McCain's own military career, trust him not to betray American troops. They should, however, ask themselves if they should trust a man who places such a great value on sacrifice in fighting the wrong war for the sake of the "democratization" and "stability" of a country 2,000 years behind Jefferson and Adams. They should ask themselves whose country those troops are fighting for.

The second part of this commentary will examine McCain's positions more closely.

(1) The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson & Abigail & John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon. Chapel Hill-London: University of North Carolina Press, 1959 (renewed 1987), pp. 451-452.

Objectivist Round-Up - July 10, 2008

By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Welcome to the July 10, 2008 edition of the Objectivist Round-Up--it's again our pleasure to be hosting this week's edition. This week's round-up presents some of the best insight and analyses written by authors who are animated by Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. According to Ayn Rand:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

"About the Author," Atlas Shrugged, Appendix.

So without any further delay (and in no particular order), here's this week's round-up:

I present Five Great American Paintings (Part II) posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "It was made very clear to me at OCON that I need to finish my great American art series of blog posts, so to please the starving Objectivist masses, here is Post II featuring Norman Rockwell's The Homecoming Marine."

Edward Cline presents John McCain: Pseudo-Maverick I posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "This is part one of my analyses of US Presidential Candidate John McCain and his contempt for self-interest."

Burgess Laughlin presents What is a movement? posted at Making Progress, saying, "I learned from Aristotle that an effective place to start in thinking about a problem is to ask: "What is it?" That is what this article does, as preparation for one or more later articles on movements of the past and present."

Ari Armstrong presents Rational Endowment posted at FreeColorado.com, saying, "Perhaps the endowment effect is more rational than we've been told."

Gus Van Horn presents Common(s) Confusion posted at Gus Van Horn, saying, "Freedom of speech is not the same thing as forcing someone else to help you be heard."

Monica presents Plant Community Responses to Global Warming posted at Spark A Synapse, saying, "Some recent research by a prominent plant ecologist indicates that grasslands may be more resistant to climate change than previously anticipated. Interesting stuff."

Paul Hsieh presents OCON: Q&A Session with Leonard Peikoff posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Dr. Leonard Peikoff held a special 90 minute Q&A session for OCON attendees. Here are a few of the best questions and answers."

Greg Perkins presents Principled Punishment and the Death Penalty posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Just what would make killing a heinous murderer necessary in lieu of, say, locking him up for life? Here I propose a way of thinking about punishment that answers that challenge, and more."

Myrhaf presents A New Era of Servitude posted at Myrhaf, saying, "This post looks at Obama's speech last week about his national service program."

Peter Cresswell presents Snouts in a $750 million trough posted at Not PC, saying, "Only politicians could demand renunciation, sacrifice and the strangling of western industry out of mouths so full of pork."

Justin Ketterer presents Osama's Reasoning posted at Deus Ex Machina.

That concludes this edition of the Objectivist Round-Up. Submit your blog article to the next edition (to be hosted by Noodlefood) using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags: <!-- add your technorati tags here! -->objectivist round up, blog carnival.

With or Without Nukes, Iran Is a Mortal Threat

By Elan Journo from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog

With or Without Nukes, Iran Is a Mortal Threat

By Elan Journo

Imagine that your neighborhood is overrun by a gang. These brutes are wielding crowbars, knives, and pistols in a frenzied spree of home break-ins and mugging and murder. Now suppose the police reveal that their grand strategy for dealing with this gang is to block them from getting submachine guns--as if without such weapons, the gang would no longer bother people.

Would you sleep soundly at night?

Or would you be outraged? Of course you would, because this gang--even without more powerful weapons--is already a serious menace that must be stopped.

Now, what would you say if this ridiculous what-if scenario resembled our actual response to the very real threat from Iran?

Ever since taking U.S. embassy staff hostage in 1979, the Islamist regime in Teheran has led an international spree of bombings, hijackings, and other terrorist attacks on Americans and Westerners. Now politicians and diplomats, who put up with Iranian aggression for years, are loudly promising to block Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

On the campaign trail, for instance, the candidates debate how (i.e., with or without preconditions) they'd negotiate to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuke--on the idea that without such a weapon in Iranian hands, everything will be hunky-dory.

But the uncomfortable truth is that if the mullahs got a nuke, Iran would not suddenly undergo a Jekyll-and-Hyde transformation from a friendly neighbor into a rabid enemy. Iran long ago proved itself a threat that must be stopped; a nuclear arsenal would only make it a far worse threat.

For three decades the ayatollahs of Iran have been using proxies--such as Hezbollah--to carry out murderous attacks. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps helped create and train Hezbollah, which hijacked a TWA airliner and which kidnapped and tortured to death American citizens. Iran pulled the strings behind the 1983 bomb attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon and later the barracks of U.S. Marines, killing 241 Americans. Iran also orchestrated the 1996 car bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. servicemen died.

There's more: The 9/11 Commission found that "senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives," and that "8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi 'muscle' operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001." During the Afghanistan war, Iran welcomed fleeing al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Today, according to the U.S. military, Iran is running training camps near Teheran for Iraqi insurgents, who return to Iraq to practice and train others in their bomb-making skills. There's also growing evidence that Iraqi insurgents get bomb technology from Iran. 

What's going on here?

A rational assessment of Iran would have to recognize that the mullahs in Teheran have been conducting a proxy war against America. The inspiration for this war is Iran's jihadist goal of imposing Islamic totalitarianism globally. Iran is a leading sponsor of jihadists and the self-identified role model for exporting its Islamic revolution to other countries. It is the sworn enemy of the West. We should take seriously its call to bring "Death to America!"--because it has already done so.

But too many American diplomats and commentators refuse to judge Iran. Instead, they regard its past hostility as a string of disconnected crises, unrelated to Iran's ideological agenda. They avoid naming the nature of the regime and behave as if its acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be the decisive event. But that particular weapon--despite its power--cannot be the whole story, since we don't worry about other countries, such as France and Britain, having nukes. The rarely admitted difference is that the regime in Iran would eagerly press the launch button.

This fear-the-weapon-not-the-killer mentality refuses to understand the threat posed by Iran right now. This view holds that only the concrete facts about Iran's arsenal have any practical significance, while its abstract, ideological goals and character can be disregarded with impunity. But whether Iran uses one nuke, or attacks with more conventional weapons, its victims are still dead.

Our leaders' narrow concern with Iran's nuclear capability cannot make the regime's longstanding hostility to America go away. Americans should face the real character and conduct of the Iranian regime, before it is too late.

 

                                                                                                      RSS

                                                                                                       

Instinct vs. Reason

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

The Mother Earth Agitprop Channel -- I mean Animal Planet twice in one video clip (HT: Getting Things Done in Academia) inadvertently hints at (but still misses) why man is the dominant species on the planet even as it entertains us with a black lemur getting high by smearing millipede secretions all over itself.


Notice that the lemur gets a clear biological benefit from its behavior and doesn't do it to excess -- but that we also don't hear about lemurs generally developing new ways to improve any other aspects of their lives or even to get a buzz. So long as this aspect of their environment remains unchanged -- we don't, say, have this type of millipede die off or a lookalike that is deadly poisonous to lemurs come along -- they will hit the jackpot every time they come across one of these. This generalizes to any other evolved behavior of the lemur. Drop one into Manhattan and I doubt it would survive for long.

Man's great advantage -- and limitation -- is his faculty of reason. He has the advantage of being able to learn new things and to apply his knowledge and imagination to the problem of how to survive. The downside is that he can err and that his faculty does not act automatically.
That later property of the human mind is known as free will and, in the context of the creative use of chemicals, the above picture of the effects of crystal meth addiction shows all too soberingly what can happen when man tries to live without applying reason to the problem of his survival.

Some kinds of recreational drug use can be harmless and some fun, but if one does not actively consider the question of how it can affect his future -- if one attempts to live like a lemur rather than like a man -- one will pay the price. And the more one fails to live by reason, the steeper that price will be.

We can glean this lesson by thinking about why the video of the buzzed lemur is funny, but we can also consider what sounds like the beginnings of (yet another) Green sermon at the end of the video. The central ethical error of environmentalism is intrinsicism, specifically of holding nature completely untouched by human action as good in and of itself.

But a proper, rational ethics considers the question of "Good -- to whom?", thereby raising the issue of the standard of value. If man is to survive, he must have a way to guide his reasoning day to day, and the application of an intrinsic standard (which inherently yanks all context of one's life out of consideration) is a sure way to reduce him to an animal level of functioning, but in an environment -- the wilderness -- which does not permit man to live by instinct.

Too bad environmentalism, with its intrinsic ethics, blinds scientist and layman alike to what one species of animal, man, needs to survive. All animals interact with their environment in specific ways. To damn across the board man's use of creativity in his interactions with nature is to condemn him to extinction.

-- CAV

Will paralysis save the WTC?

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

Regular readers here are well aware of my contempt for any instance of the government failing to do its job, which is to protect individual rights. Furthermore, I fully agree with Galileo that government ownership of the site of the 2001 terrorist atrocities in New York City has kept it from being rebuilt in style by now, or at least well on its way. As things stand, we have a pit, and a pitiful plan where two larger towers ought to stand.

But perhaps the government has dawdled usefully for a change! Nicole Gelinas of City Journal reports that a recent "progress" report on the "rebuilding" effort does afford the opportunity to reevaluate, and to take the lessons of Seven World Trade Center to heart.

On 9/11, al-Qaida murdered 2,974 people and destroyed two iconic office towers that dominated New York's skyline, another lone office tower nearby, and some smaller support buildings. We can't recover stolen lives. But what would it take to make New York physically whole again, while paying tribute to 9/11's history and victims? One obvious answer is to build two iconic office towers that dominate New York's skyline once again, surrounded by some smaller buildings. Notice that the one project that has achieved completion after 9/11 -- Silverstein's Seven World Trade Center, the lone office tower near the main site -- did so partly because Silverstein realized that al-Qaida's attack wasn't a mandate to reinvent the obvious. He simply built a more elegant tower to succeed what al-Qaida had destroyed, modernized for the twenty-first century in terms of safety and aesthetics and placed in a superior setting.

New York could take a similar approach with the rest of the site. New twin towers wouldn't be the old ones; nobody can pretend that 9/11 never happened. They'd offer modern, sleek designs, as Seven World Trade Center does, and they'd be built to private-sector specifications. They'd need twenty-first-century, post-9/11 safety upgrades. The site would also need an appropriate memorial and well-designed public spaces.

It may not be too late to take this commonsense approach to rebuilding, which was never the puzzle the world's great architects have made it out to be. For a truly breathtaking example of what New York could achieve at Ground Zero, take a look at what the late Herb Belton, an architect who worked on the original twin towers, and structural engineer Ken Gardner have proposed. [bold added]

From the above link comes the image at right and the following:

[T]his project could be realized in less time than the existing plan. It would be a good deal less costly to both build and maintain, saving hundreds of millions in construction costs and ultimately, in the cost of operation. Most existing contracts could be renegotiated to accommodate the change of course. And there is no doubt that the construction trades would rather rebuild the Twin Towers than any other plan.

The plans and models are available for viewing. Years of dedicated effort have gone into preparing for the day when the political climate would be ready to judge this plan on its merits. We are confident that it will stimulate the interest, and ultimately win the support, of those who hold the future of the World Trade Center in their hands, because it has no downside. This is what people have asked for from the beginning. It would be a colossal gain for all Americans and peace-loving people everywhere. [bold added]

In a nutshell: Build them back even better than they were. Oh, and they'd be taller, too! Good!

It appears that there is a real opportunity -- although it is knocking at the government's door -- for the World Trade Center to finally and really be rebuilt!

I'm not holding my breath, but it would do a lot of good for me and lots of other people I'm sure to see this plan adopted and carried out.

-- CAV

A Sail to Catch the Wind

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

With Jim May's permission I repost below a post he made to the private HBL. (I have reformatted it for this blog, with minor stylistic changes such as putting book titles in italics, but the content is unchanged.) The post makes an interesting point about demagoguery I had not seen before. Usually we think of demagogues manipulating the emotions of large crowds -- but who is controlling whom?

****

Obama, the Empty Vessel

Robert Tracinski wrote:

If you were fooled by Obama's secularist rhetoric, don't feel too bad. He described the essence of his political modus operandi in his campaign book The Audacity of Hope: "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."

I just finished reinstalling my jaw after reading that. This is why: Consider the following quote, where I substituted "THE DEMAGOGUE" for its actual subject. I predict most, if not all list members, will recognize who is being discussed before I reveal it at the end of the quote.

No, evidently propaganda is not just the trick of "always saying the same thing" -- that would be too simple. . . Actually, propaganda changes and irradiates like swamp water in changing weather. The facts must constantly be interpreted, invented, falsified anew; overnight, friend must become foe; good, evil -- and always the force of faith must gleam through the veil of shifting truths. Without this power of faith, the propagandist cannot make people believe even the simplest truths, much less a tissue of contradictions and lies! . . .

The truth is irremediably buried beneath these deceptions and contradictions. How, then, can the speaker expect to put through a single incisive, suitable lie, when from speech to speech, from sentence to sentence, he changes even the lies? Whom does he expect to persuade that he himself believes a single one of those mutually contradictory lies? And to what purpose does he try to spread an opinion among the people, when on the very next day he is going to sacrifice that opinion?

Such questions are asked by those who do not understand propaganda, who understand propaganda as the art of instilling an opinion in the masses. Actually, it is the art of receiving an opinion from the masses....

THE DEMAGOGUE did not hammer the same simple statement into the minds of millions; on the contrary, he played with the masses and titillated them with the most contradictory assertions. It is this art of contradiction which makes him the greatest and most successful propagandist of his time. He does not dominate the minds of millions, his mind belongs to them. Like a piece of wood floating on the waves, he follows the shifting currents of public opinion. This is his true strength.

The true aim of political propaganda is not to influence, but to study the masses. The speaker is in constant communication with the masses; he hears an echo, and senses the inner vibration. In forever setting new and contradictory assertions before his audience, THE DEMAGOGUE is tapping the outwardly shapeless substance of public opinion with instruments of varying metals and varying weights. When a resonance issues from the depths of the substance, the masses have given him the pitch; he knows in what terms he must finally address them.

Rather than as a means of directing the mass mind, propaganda is a technique for riding with the masses. It is not a machine to make wind, but a sail to catch the wind.

(Emphasis mine.)

I have, until now, held that the Obama phenomenon has been about his followers signalling their readiness for a Maximum Leader, more so than about Obama himself. I did not know that he actually describes himself in terms that the quoted author, Konrad Heiden, uses to describe THE DEMAGOGUE, who is Adolf Hitler.

I am still shaking my head that Obama openly confesses to being the same sort of selfless banality as Hitler was. I do not necessarily believe that Obama will be the next Fuehrer; the antidote, as weak as it is, remains active in the culture, unlike Weimar. But it is nonetheless disturbing to see this particular pattern show up so clearly, so soon, at the level of a presidential election.

Quote source: pp137-140, Der Fuehrer by Konrad Heiden, 1944, 1st edition, Houghton-Mifflin, translated by Ralph Mannheim.

Principled Punishment and the Death Penalty

By Greg Perkins from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

There are two natural criteria to attend to if we are to advocate the death penalty in our justice system: we must establish that we are objective in identifying, say, heinous murderers -- and we must establish that it is morally permissible if not mandatory to kill them when so identified.

I want to focus here on the moral question: should we kill the heinous murderer when he is so identified? (I appreciate that the epistemological troubles of our justice system are substantial and likely rule out as negligent the imposition of any punishment so decisive and final as the death penalty. For the moment, though, let's set aside today's epistemological issues and their general reform; please assume objective convictions for this discussion of punishment.)

In addressing the morality of the death penalty, we may be tempted to simply appeal to retributive justice and say that one should lose a life for taking a life, discussion over. But while Objectivists support a retributivist justice system, this principle is not by itself decisive regarding the specific punishment of the death penalty: notice we can't and don't attempt to balance crime and punishment literally, with an eye for an actual eye, a theft for a theft, and so on. (Consider the simple example of an arsonist burning down your house. It is not possible to likewise burn down his if he is a renter.) No, we are satisfied -- and necessarily so -- with the justice of something more indirect. We use proxies like imprisonment and fines, scaled and otherwise adjusted to achieve the effect we seek in matching punishment to endless variety in crime. So any answer to the moral question around the death penalty has to accommodate this and explain just what would make killing a heinous murderer necessary in lieu of, say, locking him up for life.

I haven't yet seen any fundamental explanation of what would require "the ultimate punishment" in the face of this element of flexibility in our response to crime. Here I'll propose a way of thinking about punishment that answers that challenge, and more. (Because I am not a lawyer and could easily be confused about our legal system, I especially encourage legally-savvy readers to jump in and correct or clarify as needed!)

Nested Classes of Offense

First, note how Objectivism carefully distinguishes immorality in general from criminality, a particular species of immorality. Shunning productiveness is your own problem, until you start stealing from others to feed yourself. The key distinguishing feature here is the initiation of physical force (including indirect forms, like fraud). It is one thing to choose not to pursue life yourself -- i.e., to choose not to be moral -- but it is another to also initiate physical force and prevent someone else from doing so, suppressing their moral agency. This is why the Objectivist politics identifies the proper scope of government action (and any legitimate use of physical force) as a response only to violations of rights, leaving all other matters to force-free resolution via, say, personal disassociation. It is specifically the initiation of physical force which necessitates a response involving physical force.

I am going to argue that just as rights violations are essentially different than other cases of immorality and thus require an essentially different kind of response, that there is an essential distinction between criminal offenses and civil offenses that requires an essentially different kinds of response, and that there is an essential distinction between capital offenses and other kinds of crime that requires an essentially different kinds of response. In every case, the nature of the offense is different in kind than offenses from the other classes, and in all cases the nature of any response, to be just, must at least match the offense in kind. That is: while injustice is possible if crime and punishment are not well matched, justice is impossible if they are not at least from fundamentally commensurable classes.

Consider then the following classes of offense and how they relate to each other, beginning with mere immorality and progressing through nested subclasses of ever-stronger rights violations (yes, as I try to frame these categories in terms of essentials, I may be shifting some boundaries as currently conceived and implemented in our legal system) :

1. Immorality: when someone operates counter to the fundamental principles of sustaining human life (is dishonest, irrational, lacks integrity, etc.). In this case, others are free to respond with a range of peaceful forms of disassociation (by, say, avoiding someone, or perhaps even advertising that choice and their reasons for it). Lameness calls for loneliness. Note how offense and response must be at least fundamentally commensurate: where there is no physical force being initiated, no physical force may be used in response (otherwise that would itself be an injustice to take legal note of -- an initiation of force, criminality in response to mere immorality).
   
   
2. Civil offenses: when someone isn't just immoral, but more specifically bears responsibility for damaging an innocent's person or property (say, with an irrational contract dispute, or an at-fault driving collision). In this case, our justice system compels the offender to repair the damage they are responsible for. Damage calls for restoration. Note how again offense and response must be at least fundamentally commensurate: responding to a civil misdeed with only disassociation of any stripe would be unjust -- and, as indicated above, responding to mere immorality with compulsory "reparations" of any kind would likewise be unjust.
   
   
3. Criminal offenses: when someone isn't just responsible for harming an innocent's person or property, but more specifically intentionally curtails an innocent's moral agency (say, with armed robbery, fraud, burglary). In this case, our justice system in turn curtails the offender's moral agency (his liberty via imprisonment, his property via fines and confiscation). Curtailment calls for curtailment. Note yet again how offense and response must be at least fundamentally commensurate: responding to a criminal misdeed with only compulsory reparations would be unjust -- and responding to mere civil offenses with imprisonment of any length would likewise be unjust.
   
   
4. Capital offenses: when someone chooses not just to curtail an innocent's pursuit of life, but more specifically to eliminate an innocent's life (say, with premeditated murder). Here then is the key distinction to observe: murder isn't merely subverting someone's means to continued existence, curtailing their pursuit of life -- it is purposefully eliminating their life itself, ending their existence altogether. There is a difference in kind between the implicit and the explicit, the means and their end, and these cannot be treated as merely different in degree. Annihilation calls for annihilation. As with the other classes above, offense and response must be at least fundamentally commensurate: responding to a heinous murder with only imprisonment, no matter the length, would be unjust -- and responding to a mere criminal offense with any form of the death penalty would likewise be unjust.
   

I think the above clarifies the objective basis for capital punishment, cementing the moral necessity of its use when the proper conditions have been met (and please note again that such conditions would include an epistemologically sound conviction).

Because the above organization encompasses and relates the entire range of misdeeds and response along principled lines, we have an opportunity to see if it might help explain, or even suggest adjustments to, other aspects of our justice system.

Decomposition of Crime and Composition of Response

Focus now on how the above classes are nested, with each being a narrowing of the preceding: Not every moral breach is a civil offense (often one is only harming oneself, or only harming others in non-rights-violating ways) -- while every civil offense is necessarily a moral breach (that is the source of the responsibility for a rights-violating harm). And not every civil offense is a criminal offense (being responsible for harm and intending to do harm are not the same thing) -- while every criminal offense is a civil offense (intending to do harm certainly makes you responsible for it). And so on through all of the classes.

This indicates that responses should not be limited to only what is indicated by the narrowest category that applies, but must also include any relevant responses from each of the broader enclosing classes as well -- because they all apply. So murderers should expect time in prison (for the criminal aspects), being forced to make any possible reparations (for the civil aspects), and certainly infamy and social ostracism (for the moral aspects), on their way to annihilation (for the capital aspect). And a burglar should expect fines and jail time (for the criminal aspects), to restore his victim (for the civil aspects), and to suffer social ostracism (for the moral aspects). Any given crime must be treated on all applicable levels, by decomposing its aspects into relevant charges, and addressing each to compose the full response.

Our legal system's support for separate treatment of civil and criminal offenses is a mechanism for satisfying this need. But it is also interesting to see how the cascade of offenses above helps us see how our approach is not the only way to satisfy this need: a different court system could, say, use a single trial, decomposing the offense into its various charges at all levels for appropriate assessment, and then handing down a single, integrated response. The cascade of offenses also clarifies how holding separate civil and criminal trials needn't introduce the injustice of "double jeopardy": the charges and potential punishments for each of these classes are different in kind -- one being about responsibility for damages, the other about criminal curtailment of moral agency or worse. So whether or not both of these aspects of a crime are assessed during the same proceeding is immaterial, a matter of convenience or tradition.

One danger of our current two-trial approach, though, lies in blurring the distinction I've drawn between civil and criminal matters. Their division of judicial labor can become unprincipled and uncoordinated: consider that we have criminal courts handing down orders for reparations, and civil courts handing down orders for "punitive damages." This blurring of responsibilities seems to flirt with the injustice of double jeopardy. Worse still, in the case of civil courts drifting into handing down punishments, the higher standard of judgment demanded in criminal proceedings is being evaded.

Graduated Standards of Judgment

Regarding standards of judgment, consider how this nested structure highlights qualitative leaps in the gravity and irreparability of offense and response. Combined with the fact of limited time and resources, this suggests the need for qualitative leaps in standards of judgment and extent of oversight. Negligence in the justice system itself cannot ever be acceptable (that would render it literally an injustice system) : the more grave and/or irreparable the crime, the more diligence we must bring to bear to ensure correctness in conviction and punishment with a similarly grave and/or irreparable response. Our present system addresses this need as follows:

• In civil judgments we must show responsibility for damages. Our system's standard for demonstrating such liability is that of a "preponderance of the evidence", which seems to roughly correspond to what Objectivists technically classify as "probable" [OPAR 178].
  
• In criminal judgments, we must show intent to commit a rights violation (i.e., the initiation of physical force, even indirectly like with fraud or potentially with assault). Our system's more-rigorous standard for demonstrating such guilt is that of "beyond a reasonable doubt", which seems to roughly correspond to what Objectivists technically classify as "certain" [ibid].
  
• In capital judgments, we must show intent to cause a rights-violating death. This requires the standard of criminal judgments, with the additional requirement of appeals and extended scrutiny and oversight to further insure against any systemic negligence.
  

Carefully observing the proper standard for each aspect of a crime is required, lest we court the kind of systemic negligence mentioned above, with civil courts handing down "punitive damages."

Commodity Units of Punishment

Because of the impossibility of literally matching offense and response, as well as because of limits in time and resources, we need to institute uniform responses to crime that make it possible to "dial in" a just match to any given offense.

The above classes of offense are based in philosophical principle and fixed, while within each class there is endless variation in misdeed. Because the misdeeds in each class are fundamentally commensurate, though, we have the possibility of commoditizing our responses, making them regular and even scalable to match a great variety of fundamentally similar offenses. The use of such units also allows us to objectively express the relative badness of one offense vs. another, making for sentencing open to audit, against guidelines that are open to review, clarification, and correction.

In civil reparations, we achieve commoditization of damages economically: most damages can be cleanly reduced to the monetary impact of the replacement value of items, the time value of lost use, the value of time away from work, the economic impact of reputation damage, the economic impact of a lost limb, etc. The troublesome aspects for restoration lie in physical pain, mutilation or death, psychological suffering, the loss of a unique object, and the like: these cannot be genuinely repaired with money or any object or action. Take pain and suffering, for example: at best, we might attempt to contrive a monetary valuation for psychological suffering by rough, subjective scaling of pay for an extraordinarily unpleasant job. But the trouble is most clear in the case of physical pain: trying to find the market value for the experience of letting someone, say, break one's arm is right out. This is quite unfortunate, because it means a victim of such damage cannot be made whole in principle. In such cases there is simply no justice to be had -- and this would be morally intolerable if it were not due to a metaphysically-given fact.

In criminal punishment, our system commoditizes moral agency curtailment via limitations on liberty (incarceration) and takings of property (fines or confiscations). Each component can be scaled and combined with the other in practically endless ways to punish much of what makes up criminal activity. Even psychological suffering can be captured by such losses. But just as we cannot repair the infliction of physical pain in civil cases with any action or object, we cannot genuinely punish the infliction of physical pain via incarceration or fines. These are simply not commensurable. And while there was a metaphysically-given fact standing in the way of civil reparations for such damage, there is no such fact standing in the way of criminal punishments for inflicting such damage.

To genuinely punish the intentional infliction of physical pain, we would need a uniform, scalable imposition of physical pain by some means (ideally one that could deliver a controlled degree and amount with no physical damage whatever, thus leaving all other elements of the crime to be matched as needed by a mix of incarceration, fines, and so on). While perhaps distasteful, this seems to be the only kind of unit which is actually commensurable with the sometimes substantial physical suffering intentionally inflicted in cases involving torture, beating, rape, and so on. In having such a unit of punishment available to match those (and of course only those) commensurate aspects of a crime, the justice system would no longer be driven by its current inability to actually punish, say, a heinous rape of a child, into seizing upon "some" (i.e., the only available) "greater punishment" than even life behind bars. Such a category leap into capital punishment for even a particularly horrible but 'merely' criminal offense is in fact unjust. Responses like that corrode the absolute, principled lines of the justice system to invite ever more arbitrary actions and corrosion -- precisely what must be avoided in a proper government's response to crime. (Note that, just as in capital punishment, such corporal punishment is impossible to repair, so the epistemological oversight must be likewise heightened to prevent systemic negligence.)

In capital punishment, our system achieves commoditization by ostensibly employing a small, uniform set of (relatively) quick and painless procedures for execution. (Note that there is no need for a scalable unit of capital punishment because existence vs. nonexistence is binary.) And on the account here, it is a good trend to seek to standardize on the most quick and painless method(s) of execution -- including bringing as little gore and psychological damage to the witnesses and executioners as is possible. While methods of execution that are purposely torturous and gory in varying ways and degrees have been used throughout history, this would again be a case of needlessly mixing in aspects of punishment which should be assessed and treated independently, in the criminal supercategory. For example, a heinous torture-murder should be decomposed into the judgment and response to the torture, and the judgment and response to the killing, each by the applicable standards -- and this would result in an overall punishment that is properly distinguished from the punishment for a 'mere' murder.

Toward Principled Punishment

I have argued here that we should seek principled lines in identifying and classifying misdeeds, to systemically encourage justice and discourage injustice in our potential responses. And while perhaps distasteful, this means that we should ensure that our justice system has available all of the needed kinds of units of punishment, as in the cases of corporal and capital punishment. This is not only to allow the possibility of genuine justice in punishment, but also so frustration at the systemic prevention of justice caused by any such gaps will not drive people to seek "justice" by violating the principled lines we must observe to maintain the objectivity of our system. That kind of corrosion in particular has to be avoided, lest we spiral ever further into the arbitrariness which has characterized so much of mankind's approach to punishment.

Just Kidding. Sort Of...

By noreply@blogger.com (Dan Edge) from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Or:

Why One Shouldn't Joke About Serious Things

When my wife's parents make jokes about me being a dumb redneck from a 3rd world country (South Carolina), it's hilarious. It's funny because it's completely ridiculous. They know that I'm an intelligent, educated young man whom they love and respect. I am the exact opposite of what their sarcastic comments indicate. The sharp contrast between the joke and reality is what makes it so funny. When they make these kinds of jokes, they are drawing attention to the fact that they love and respect me, and it makes me feel good.

But what if my in-laws actually thought I was ignorant, racist, or stupid? Their sarcasm would take on a completely different meaning. Their jokes would be a thinly veiled assault on my character. If I knew they were even partially serious when they made fun of me, then I would be offended by their comments.

To alter the example somewhat: what if I had a self-esteem problem and believed that I actually was, in part, an ignorant redneck? When my in-laws joked about it, I might feel offended, even though no offense was intended. One couldn't blame them if they didn't know I had a self-esteem issue. But what if they knew it made me uncomfortable? Should they refrain from making such jokes?

Or: what if I was relatively ignorant (as a result of poor education) or had a below-average intelligence, and my in-laws knew it? What meaning would their sarcasm have in this case?

To answer these questions, one must understand the proper role and function of humor. The rational man uses humor to ridicule evil and irrationality. Humor is an expression of one's conviction that evil is metaphysically impotent, that "[w]e never had to take any of it seriously". When my in-laws joke about where I came from, they are pretending to adopt a ridiculously irrational viewpoint: that anyone from the south is necessarily ignorant and stupid. They are making fun of irrational prejudice, and calling attention to the fact that I am the exact opposite of the prejudicial stereotype.

But if my in-laws actually accepted the irrational stereotype of southerners, then their humor would have the exact opposite meaning. To them, the evil would be me thinking I could overcome the stereotype. They would be ridiculing my belief that I am intelligent and educated. This kind of derisive sarcasm is common among college professors, as I'm sure many Objectivist students can verify. It represents the nastiest kind of metaphysical premise: hatred of the good for being the good.

Consider now the altered example, in which I am actually intelligent and educated, but have a self-esteem problem. Part of me believes that I can't overcome the stereotype of the southern country boy. One couldn't blame my in-laws if they made well-intentioned jokes that hurt my feelings. They would have no way of knowing about my self-esteem problem unless I communicated it to them. This kind of case is common because many young people retain irrational premises from their upbringing that negatively impact their self-esteem. Oftentimes, one is hurt when others make him the butt of jokes, but he doesn't say anything about it because he doesn't think he should feel offended. (I discuss this kind of error in more detail in my article Are There Bad Emotions?).

The answer here is that one should communicate to others, especially loved ones, if their jokes make him uncomfortable. If one doesn't know why it makes him uncomfortable, then he must introspect to determine the cause of these emotions. Feeling uncomfortable at being the butt of well-intentioned jokes can be a clue that an unresolved self-esteem issue exists. While he is dealing with his psychological problems, he ought to ask his loved ones not to joke about it, because to him it is a very serious issue. Otherwise, resentment and silent animosity can begin to develop in his relationships.

If one knew that his loved one had a self-esteem problem, and he joked about it anyway, then what meaning would the humor have? What evil is being ridiculed? If my in-laws knew that I was insecure about my upbringing, and joked about it anyway, then they would be making fun of my inner struggle. The evil, in their eyes, would be the fact of my self-esteem problem. But psychological problems as such are not evil, and struggling to overcome them is an effort to be admired, not ridiculed. For this reason, I consider it very rude and inappropriate for one to make fun of another's psychological problems, especially if that person has communicated that it makes him uncomfortable.

Finally, consider the example in which I am relatively ignorant or unintelligent. Assuming that my ignorance is not self-inflicted, then it would be highly inappropriate to make fun of me for it. I did not choose where I went to primary school, and my degree of intelligence is also non-volitional. So if one were to make fun of me, the evil he is ridiculing is the fact of my ignorance or lack of intelligence. But these traits are not evil as such, not if they are outside the realm of one's volition. If I saw someone making fun of a man with Downs Syndrome for being stupid - or a frail, elderly man for walking slowly - or a cripple for being confined to a wheelchair -- then I would want to punch his lights out. These kinds of jokes are the basest form of humor. It's like laughing at an innocent man on a torture rack.

While the preceding example is more clear-cut, it's not always obvious when one is using humor inappropriately. Sarcasm between friends can be great fun, but it can also be hurtful, whether well intentioned or not. The key is to keep in mind the nature of humor, identify to oneself what evils he is ridiculing, and communicate with his loved ones if their humor makes him uncomfortable.

In closing, I have a final message to my readers: You are the dumbest, smelliest, most wretched bunch of Kantian sexual deviants I've ever had the displeasure of knowing! Seriously...

--Dan Edge

Quick Roundup 341

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

Another Take on Internet Portals and Content

Complementing my post yesterday about the relationship between freedom of speech, property rights, and government is a post by Robb concerning an aspect of the problem I did not look at, but which even further confuses the issue: the fact that lots of the more over-the-top restrictions on what customers can post are also due (often indirectly) to bad government:

[P]rivate companies have the right to delete content (which the article acknowledges), but the subtext never discussed here is that these companies aren't deleting "objectionable content" out of any desire to defend their own values (whatever corporate values are in today's world), but simply to avoid litigation by private parties and government agencies, who *illegitimately* threaten the First Amendment rights of the companies themselves to host web content. [bold added]

I'm glad Robb looked at that angle of the issue and recommend reading the entire thing, as well as Monica's additional commentary.

Also, you can now visit Robb's blog, Robbservations, from the side bar any time.

"It's a Good Life"

No. It's not the campaign slogan of either the McBama or the O'Cain campaign, but it should be, based on Chuck's review of the Twilight Zone episode bearing that title:

I've seen this episode before. But this time it struck me as an excellent description of life under an absolute ruler, whether a modern dictator, or a traditional monarch. Historically, such rulers had, and the modern ones continue to have, absolute power, including the power of life and death over all of his or her subjects, which could be, and often was, exercised at whim. So the subjects must all live in fear of the ruler, and pretend to be happy and agree with any whim of the ruler, lest they be sent to the cornfield. [bold added]

And be sure to read the end. We still have some freedom left in America, and we must use it to oppose whichever power luster wins in November in any way possible.

Every time I see a picture of Obama's crowds, it makes me think of the following quote by Ayn Rand from "Apollo and Dionysus":

The hippies are a desperate herd looking for a master, to be taken over by anyone; anyone who would tell them how to live, without demanding the effort of thinking. Theirs is the mentality ready for a Fuehrer.

These people are, in a sense, already "in the cornfield", as admissions like, "The Obama political campaign clearly qualifies as a social movement that is larger than the sum of its parts," would indicate. Its "parts" (cogs?) are individual human beings who want to "lose themselves" in a collective. Sad for them and dangerous for me.

Wall-e

How did I miss this review by Jennifer Snow?

Although elements that might, in other circumstances, point at consumerism and environmentalism are present in the movie, the movie is actually about virtue. It's an extremely complex theme for any sort of movie . . . in fact, I think it might have been a bit too complex for THIS movie, but damn if they didn't make an excellent run at it.

That is a huge relief since I've already promised to watch it with my wife the next time I'm in Bean Town! Read the whole thing if you haven't already.

I figured that the movie would be more of a mixture than it apparently is. Good! Less to overlook or try to ignore!

Pelosi's Terrorist Friends

Dismuke emails me that records recovered from Colombia's FARC terrorists show that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, has been collaborating with terrorists. From the Power Line blog:

If this report is correct, Nancy Pelosi was carrying on her own foreign policy in opposition to that of the United States, trying to work with the socialist Hugo Chavez and the Communist FARC terrorists to undermine America's ally, Colombia. In normal times, this would be unthinkable. Given the crazed state of today's Democratic party, I'm not so sure.

I wouldn't expect our next President to do anything to rectify this situation.

-- CAV

Common(s) Confusion

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

A long, rambling, and very confused article about a lack of "free speech, rights" in the "seemingly public spaces online" serves as a perfect example of how poorly most people in our culture grasp the right to freedom of speech (which it is ostensibly about) and the right to property (which it evades or ignores -- at the cost of threatening both).

The headline alone excited a morbid curiosity on my part as soon as I read it: "'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights." Why is "public" in quotes? I doubted it was because the author is of the opinion, breath of fresh air though it would be, that a government should not own any online forums beyond what it needs to protect the individual rights of its citizens.

Does the author recognize that online forums are the private property of the companies that -- erm -- own them? If so, whence the complaint that a company doesn't simply amplify the rantings of every Tom, Dick, and Harry on its own dime? And what of the very idea of a non-governmental entity "carrying" rights, whatever that's supposed to mean?

To be fair, author Anick Jesdanun, like most of his readers, is preceded by a long history of deepening confusion about freedom of speech, property rights, the relationship between the two, and the nature and role of the government. Considering that the government can -- unlike even a big corporation like Google -- fine, jail, or execute us, not to mention affect our rights, we might pause for a moment to briefly consider the nature of government and why we have government.

We will, incidentally, consider the nature of rights along the way because, when we consider the nature and purpose of government, we will do what few have ever done: Start with the nature of man, whom the government is supposed to serve. Without doing this, there is no way to determine whether we need a government at all and, if we do, what it ought to be doing.

Actually, I have already done this here before and, lacking in time this morning, I shall quote myself. I was speaking about the lifting of an asinine fois gras ban at the time, but the same principles apply here. After our whirlwind tour of the nature of man, his requirements of survival, the nature of rights, and the nature and purpose of government, we shall apply our principles to the issues raised by Jesdanun.

[A]s the rational animal, man must exercise his mind to survive. Barring accidents of nature, the only thing preventing him from doing so is other men, specifically men who would initiate physical force -- be it by threat, constraint, fraud, theft, or murder -- in order to prevent him from enjoying the fruits of his hard-won knowledge and careful thinking.

Whether a man wants to build a clubhouse for his children or a bridge -- travel for a vacation or build a railroad from coast to coast -- pour a bowl of cereal for himself in the morning or prepare fois gras for paying customers -- that man must be free from the forcible interference of others to do so.

Man's most fundamental right is to his own life, but since his life depends on the use of reason, the various manifestations of his ability to act upon his best judgement to further his own life (so long as they do not harm the lives of others) are derivative rights. It follows that a man must have the liberty to go about as he pleases and make his own calls about what to do. What man produces to further his own life is likewise his property -- by right. And in all cases, a man must be free to communicate with others to increase his knowledge or correct errors. Freedom of speech is also a right.

(By contrast, there is no "right" to free medical care since providing it against a physician's wishes would involve violating the physician's rights. [And there is no right to "free" use of someone else's Internet portal for the same reason.] ...)

While we all have the right of self-defense, the benefits of trade we can realize in a society would be impossible were we not to delegate this right (except in dire emergencies) to the government, whose sole proper purpose is the protection of individual rights, and whose distinction as a social entity is its ability to wield retaliatory force.

This is because honest disputes, even between citizens who would respect one another's rights, can and do arise, and because the less time we spend looking over our shoulders in fear (or having to fight off enemies), we have that much more time to go about our own business, our pursuit of happiness. A proper government subordinates our right to the retaliatory use of force to objective standards. [emphasis changed]

It is only now that we understand what rights are, what the government is for, and what makes it different from a "big" corporation, that we can even begin to tackle the subject into which Jesdanun jumps mid-stream, flails about, and drowns, completely confused.

We shall consider only a few highlights now. Below are excerpts from the article in plain text, followed by my comments in bold.

• Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. The key word is "seemingly". The companies own these "spaces" and thus can do with them as they please so long as this does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. Refusing to host someone does not infringe upon his rights because nobody has the "right" to just take or use someone else's property without permission. If Yahoo refuses to broadcast my words, this is not the same thing as gagging me.
• Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors. Service providers that had any sense would refuse to aid tyrants and, if they eventually have their assets seized, lose trade secrets, or find themselves increasingly being told what to do, they will get what they deserve. Their cooperation with immoral governments does not, however, make illegitimate similar-looking activities that are merely applications of their property rights in free countries. To wit: In China, Yahoo will help the government send you to jail merely for stating your opinion. In America, you have to be guilty of an actual crime before this will happen.
• The governmental role that companies play online is taking on greater importance as their services - from online hangouts to virtual repositories of photos and video - become more central to public discourse around the world. It's a fallout of the Internet's market-driven growth, ... Other than not serving as accomplices to crime, there is no "governmental role" for companies to "play" online.
• ... but possible remedies, including government regulation, can be worse than the symptoms. This is what happens when a physician confuses a sign of health for a symptom of a disease. A company exercising its property rights is not a violation of a customer's rights unless breach of contract or criminal conduct are involved.
• Dutch photographer Maarten Dors met the limits of free speech at Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) (YHOO)'s photo-sharing service, Flickr, when he posted an image of an early-adolescent boy with disheveled hair and a ragged T-shirt, staring blankly with a lit cigarette in his mouth. No, he ran into the buzz saw of Yahoo's property rights.
• Without prior notice, Yahoo deleted the photo on grounds it violated an unwritten ban on depicting children smoking. Dors eventually convinced a Yahoo manager that - far from promoting smoking - the photo had value as a statement on poverty and street life in Romania. Yet another employee deleted it again a few months later. This proves nothing except that the people at Yahoo need to communicate better with each other.
• While mindful of free speech and other rights, Yahoo and other companies say they must craft and enforce guidelines that go beyond legal requirements to protect their brands and foster safe, enjoyable communities - ones where minors may be roaming. The reputation part of this "must" comes from the fact that they are doing this for a living. The part regarding protecting minors from sexual abuse comes from the fact that children have rights.
• But that underscores another consequence of having online commons controlled by private corporations. Rules aren't always clear, enforcement is inconsistent, and users can find content removed or accounts terminated without a hearing. Appeals are solely at the service provider's discretion. In a free society, there is no "commons" because all property is owned. Rules are as clear as contracts make them, and a potential customer can get an idea of how well they are enforced before signing a contract. Caveat emptor.
• To wit: Verizon Wireless barred an abortion-rights group from obtaining a "short code" for conducting text-messaging campaigns, while LiveJournal suspended legitimate blogs on fiction and crime victims in a crackdown on pedophilia. Two lines criticizing President Bush disappeared from AT&T Inc. (ATT)'s webcast of a Pearl Jam concert. All three decisions were reversed only after senior executives intervened amid complaints. Were people more in the habit of looking out for themselves than running to the government for help at the first sign of trouble, they (and one of Verizon's competitors) could have had a field day with this. If Verizon wants to run a lousy Internet service, that's their right as long as they can afford to.
• "As we move more of our communications into social networks, how are we limiting ourselves if we can't see alternative points of view, if we can't see the things that offend us?" asked Fred Stutzman, a University of North Carolina researcher who tracks online communities. This is obviously a liberal who hates the idea that he can't force a company to broadcast unpopular (read "hard left") opinions on someone else's dime. Psst! Ever heard of Daily Kos? Obviously, if one company won't carry the trash, another will -- although none is obligated.
• First Amendment protections generally do not extend to private property in the physical world, allowing a shopping mall to legally kick out a customer wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a smoking child. And there is no reason it should be different online. Just because you can't physically touch intellectual property does not make it any less real. And for anyone who might think otherwise, I have a pair of short questions: "Can you touch your freedom? Does that make it any less real?" The property of others is part of their freedom and harming it will eventually come back to haunt you.
• With online services becoming greater conduits than shopping malls for public communications, however, some advocacy groups believe the federal government needs to guarantee open access to speech. That, of course, could also invite meddling by the government, the way broadcasters now face indecency and other restrictions that are criticized as vague. The moment the government starts talking about "guaranteeing" access to property -- which is what is being meant here by "access to speech" -- the government is talking about violating someone's rights. This is the only way it can achieve such a goal.
• At least when a court order or other governmental action is involved, "there's more of a guarantee of due process protections," said Robin Gross, executive director of the civil-liberties group IP Justice. With a private company, users' rights are limited to the service provider's contractual terms of services. This is an obscene obfuscation. To demand that I give "due process" before I deny someone else the use of my property is to demand that I get government permission before using it. "Due process" applies only to instances of the government forcibly depriving someone of liberty or property in the course of protecting individual rights.
• Still, should these sites even make such rules? And how can they ensure the guidelines are consistently enforced? Their call, and their funeral if they don't.

This degree of confusion about freedom of speech, the right to property, and the proper role of government is as common as it is alarming. We will lose all these values if we do not start working overtime to protect them today, or support those who do.

-- CAV

Islamists Owe U.S. a Thank You Card

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

It's nearing the end of another U.S. Administration--and another gross failure of leadership that has allowed Islamic terrorism to adapt and thrive.

The modern threat of Islamic totalitarianism should have ended when it began with the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, but it hasn't.

Al-Qaeda, declared enemy number one after 9/11, has been reestablishing itself in the remote tribal area between Pakistan and Afganistan ever since U.S. armed forces failed to capture its leader, Osama bin Laden, at Tora Bora in 2001. And Taliban terrorists have resurfaced in these no-man's lands, increasing their attacks on U.S. and U.N. forces within Afganistan.

How is this possible after President Bush's promise of Sept. 20, 2001: "I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people"?

An excellent New York Times article details three important factors that have facilitated the ongoing threat: (1) infighting within and between our National Security bureaucracies, the State Department and the Administration; (2) the detrimental consequences of turfing onto Pakistan much of the responsibility for fighting these brewing Islamic movements; and (3) the diversion of priorities, expertise and resources to the war in Iraq.

But our inability to prevail against Islamic totalitarianism once and for all is due to a more fundamental cause than committing bureaucratic blunders and relying on shady allies to do our dirty work:

It's a failure of our leaders to unequivocally declare that we have the moral right to destroy those who threaten us, and do whatever is necessary and sufficient to quickly and permanently end the threat.

It means: if Iran has been identified as the founder and prime sponsor of Islamic totalitarianism, then the Iranian regime must be terminated.

It means: if Islamists are setting up boot camp with the complicity of local tribes in some wasteland, then our forces---not a third party--must wipe them out, totally, using whatever means is required.

It means: we declare to the world that we will not play diplomatic games, rely on bureaucrats with conflicting agendas, or take into account the cultural sensitivities of our enemies or their enablers.

No more holding hands and singing Kumbaya with a mortal enemy who blatantly threatens to annihilate us.

This lack of full commitment to "the war on terror" isn't lost on the American psyche. Remember when little American flags used to be proudly displayed on millions of cars after the twin towers were attacked? You don't see much of that anymore because maybe the Islamists have called our bluff.

It's time to regain our pride, and claim our moral right to exist in peace as a free country defined by the principles of individual rights.

It's time to implement our moral imperative to decisively end Islamic totalitarianism--once and for all.

UNwanted Movie

By Greg Perkins from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

We went to see the new Angelina Jolie flick, Wanted, the other night. Having watched the trailers, and noting that 75% or so of 150+ reviews were coming out positive, our expectation was of basically mindless summer action in a slick package.

We got all that: the production values were excellent, and the acting was just fine -- most of all, the action sequences were extremely stylish and fantastically unrealistic, though a bit over the top on gore at times. All of this is what you would expect. It's the "message" that is so horrid.

*** MILD SPOLIAGE ALERT ***

The movie started out pretty quirky and random, and I was fine with cutting it slack even while Tammy was alternately squirming with boredom and revulsion at gory stuff as we waited for things to unfold. Soon enough, we got to see the main protagonist -- someone we are supposed like -- struggle briefly with and then accept the idea of killing innocent people on nothing more than blind faith in a mysterious, unseen and unfathomable authority saying they must be killed now to prevent never-specified future harms. Yes, the movie presents the issue that clearly, and then basically endorses the cold-blooded murder of innocents on faith. Our jaws dropped.

Oh, but it gets worse. Even after the danger of such blind faith and obedience was demonstrated to be problematic in the course of the plot, a second important character who we are to sympathize with and enjoy the action of goes and deliberately acts on such faith in the face of that demonstration -- and in a gigantically self-sacrificial manner! Our eyes boggled.

As if all that isn't horrid enough to be whacked in the face with, the movie underscores it by closing with a direct challenge addressed to the audience, along the lines of "see how I took splendid control of my life -- well, what have you done lately?"

We stood up and shuffled out, numb at the Columbine-level insanity of it's message... and of so many people thinking it is just fine, if not great.

Highlights from OCON: Day 8

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here are highlights from the Ayn Rand Institute's summer conference (a.k.a. OCON), Day Eight:

Yaron Brook on "Cultural Movements: Creating Change," Lecture 3 of 3:

• Yaron Brook gave a compelling speech on the desperate need for grassroots activism to help turn around the culture in the next 20 years, including some ideas for how to do so. ARI and Objectivist intellectuals cannot do all the necessary work on their own. I won't repeat what he said here, as I believe that these three lectures on activism will be made available for free on the "activism" section of the ARI web site. I cannot recommend listening to them highly enough.
  
  
• Happily, Yaron cited Lin Zinser's FIRM as a positive example of grassroots activism. Of course, for anyone interested in activism to promote Objectivist ideas in the culture, I strongly recommend joining my OActivists mailing list. I've got big plans for it to be implemented in the next month or so.
  
  
• Unfortunately, my enjoyment of this captivating lecture was marred by a very irritating request about halfway through from the person sitting next to me. She was bothered by the perfectly ordinary noise of my typing notes on my computer, and somehow I was obliged to move to another seat. That pretty much killed my concentration for the rest of the lecture. I was literally unable to comprehend what Yaron was saying for a few minutes. I was so irritated because I wasn't doing anything abnormal or inappropriate, I was in my seat with my computer before she arrived, and she ought to have moved if she's sensitive. I have no idea who the person was, but I'm still irritated, as I won't be able to remember the event without remembering that most unwelcome interruption. BLECH!

Eric Daniels on Freedom of Speech in American History, Lecture 3 of 3:

• Today, Eric Daniels covered the state of the law in various kind of free speech, particularly obscenity law, fighting words and hate speech, and symbolic speech.
  
  
• He also advocated three strategies in any attempt to defend freedom of speech. I'll list them here, although they only really make sense in the context of the whole course.
  
  
  1. Articulate and advocate a proper view of free speech, based on the proper grounds of individual rights and the exercise of reason.
     
  2. Defend even the worst speech on principle.
     
  3. Argue that free speech is not just about politics but about all aspects of man’s life.

Paul and I will be returning home tomorrow. I'm looking forward to that, although apparently it's hot hot hot in Denver.

Highlights from OCON: Day 6

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here are highlights from the Ayn Rand Institute's summer conference (a.k.a. OCON), Day Six:

Eric Daniels on Freedom of Speech in American History, Lecture 1 of 3:

• Two words perfectly summarize the opening lecture of this course: Freakin' Awesome. Eric Daniels -- my very, very favorite of all the fabulous Objectivist lecturers -- offered an hour and fifteen minutes of uber-high-bandwidth information on free speech. It was clear, comprehensible, and compelling. (I had no trouble taking copious good notes.) And, Eric looked at his notes once or twice the whole time -- maybe. So as I said: Freakin' Awesome.
  
  
• This lecture covered three foundational questions: (1) Do we have free speech today? (2) What is free speech? and (3) Why does free speech matter? (His answer for the third was particularly interesting in his emphasis on the epistemological roots of the right of free speech.) Eric then discussed -- in some detail -- the early history of free speech in America, particularly the state of English law on free speech (fascinating!), the First Amendment and the Sedition Act (not your father's view!), and the restrictions on abolitionist speech in the mid-1830s (familiar ground for me, but now better integrated and understood).

Since I'm only taking one optional course this week, that single class was my whole conference today. So I spent some time working on my dissertation, talking with friends, and goofing off. Plus I got in a painfully good workout.

Finally, Paul and I had a particularly delightful dinner with friends -- the kind of evening that I hope to vividly and fondly recall 50 years from now. That was beyond fantastic.

Oh and I forgot to mention this tidbit earlier: As of a few days ago, OCON 2008 had 455 attendees -- and that was still growing. It's a darn big conference.

Highlights from OCON: Day 7

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here are highlights from the Ayn Rand Institute's summer conference (a.k.a. OCON), Day Seven:

Eric Daniels on Freedom of Speech in American History, Lecture 2 of 3:

• Once again, Eric's class was the only lecture I attended today. It was an excellent survey of the change in thinking about free speech during the progressive era, but I'm too tired to say more. I'll try to blog more on his whole course tomorrow.

Now to bed!

A Bit of Spin

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul Krugman is in the wrong line of work. As a pundit for the New York Times, he is mediocre at best and usually much worse. He should be working for the Democrats as a guy who presents their case on the cable news shows, for his latest column reveals him to be the ultimate spinmeister. Titled "Rove's Third Term," the piece is a defense of General Clark's attack on John McCain's war record.

The fact that he would defend a smear that even Obama has distanced himself from tells you something about Krugman. Like the rabid partisans at Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, Krugman never condemns a Democrat attack on Republicans, no matter how outrageous.

First, he fudges about what Clark said, implying that all the attention it got is just Republican propaganda:

What General Clark actually said was that Mr. McCain’s war service, though heroic, didn’t necessarily constitute a qualification for the presidency. It was a blunt but truthful remark, and not at all outrageous — especially given the fact that General Clark is himself a bona fide war hero.

But here is Robert Novak's description of what happened:

Clark, along with other Obama surrogates, followed the campaign's line of downgrading McCain's performance as a Vietnam War POW. But Clark was particularly insulting. ("I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.")

Clark is in fact the eighth prominent Democrat to attack McCain's war record, evidence that the Obama campaign feels the need to attack McCain's character. McCain spent 22 years as an officer in the United States Navy, which Clark chose to belittle as "riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down." Yes, Clark's statement by itself is true, but is it a fair portrayal of McCain?

Here is another blunt, true statement: John Kerry threw away his medals after he got home from Vietnam. Now, if Bush had sent surrogates on TV to argue that true statement, don't you think Paul Krugman would have been the first to object?

But we have not even gotten to the outrageous spin yet.

Yet the Clark affair did reveal something important — not about General Clark, but about Mr. McCain. Now we know what a McCain administration would represent: namely, a third term for Karl Rove.

...

But the McCain campaign went beyond condemning General Clark’s remarks; it went out of its way to distort them. “This backhanded slap against John as not being a worthy warrior because he just got shot down is one of the more surprising insults in my military history,” said retired Col. Bud Day, who participated in a conference call organized by the campaign. In fact, General Clark had said no such thing. [BS. Clark's comment is an obvious insult. Day's characterization of Clark's meaning is accurate. Krugman is being too cute by half when he pretends Clark's statement was merely an innocent statement of fact. -- Myrhaf]

The irony, not lost on Democrats, is that Col. Day himself has done what he falsely accused Wesley Clark of doing: he appeared in the 2004 Swift boat ads that impugned John Kerry’s wartime service.

The willingness of the McCain campaign to engage in these tactics, employing such tainted spokesmen, tells us that the campaign has decided to go negative — specifically, to apply the strategy Karl Rove used so effectively in 2002 and 2004 (but not so effectively in 2006), that of portraying Democrats as unpatriotic.

So because the McCain campaign fought back against an attack on McCain's character, the candidate is going negative! In the world according to Krugman, Republicans must not only desist in any attacks on Democrats, but if they even defend themselves against Democrat attacks, they are guilty of Rovian unfairness!

Paul Krugman is a man who has, as the current phrase goes, "drunk the Democrat kool-aid." When Democrats smear a Republican's character, they are just being "blunt but truthful." When Republicans defend themselves, they are "going negative." Such is life in the liberal cocoon.

Notes from the UnderCON II

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

Happy 4th of July! I'd write something about the celbration of the founding of the most moral country (as originally conceived) on earth, because that truly is somethign to celebrate, but I've only a few moments, and I need to get something out about the conference.

Session 2 has started with a whole new set of classes, and more discussion. The standard was set right out of the chute as Tara Smith delivered what will probably be the most memorable lecture of the conference, a scathing indictment of pragmatism. For those of you who've read both of her books, Viable Values, and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics, you know her style to be clear straightforward and essentialized and this lecture was a beautiful example of this sort of analysis and thoroghness, with a bit of Tara's dry humor tossed in.

Diana Hseigh assembled all our Obloggers together for a great after dinner discussion sesson. This included Nick Provenzo, Galileo Blogs, Khaight, myself and several others. Amongst other topics of conversation included John Lewis recounting his experience facing down a crowd of rabid islamists at George Mason University, Nick and company discussing fellow Rule of Reason blogger, Ed Cline's great historical fiction series, Sparrowhawk, and what Leonard Peikoff's favorite drink is (according to Diana, it's a Kettel 1 martinin with bluecheese - yum!)

My classes for Session II include Ed Locke on Introspection, Alex Epstein on the History of the Oil Industry, and what is shaping up to be a fantastic course by Sandraw Shaw on the fall of art due to the influence of Kant, and the prosepcts for the future of rational art. Alex and I spoke at length on opening banquet since his course and the pages of this blog echo many themes important to me, and Sandra's course, complete with visual examples, is so clear and well-presented!

Ray and I continue at least 2 hr daily discussions and I meet more new people every day!

Only 3 more days left and this week which has been like food for my soul will be at an end. Wish you were here.

A New Era of Servitude

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Barack Obama has given a second speech this week leading up to the Fourth of July. In this one he expands on his idea of national service that he mentioned in his previous speech. The speech is called, "A New Era of Service." Service to the state would be a priority in an Obama administration.

Fourth of July speeches are a time to celebrate what makes America great, to speak about America's ideals. It is notable that Obama can see nothing worth talking about but statist-collectivist-altruist ideals. For a holiday that celebrates America's independence, Obama focuses on the opposite, on our supposed dependence on on another. For a holiday that traditionally celebrates freedom, Obama advocates expanded service to the state.

I submit that there has never been a candidate for President of a major party who so grossly misunderstood the meaning of America as Barack Obama. Liberals can scream that I'm "questioning his patriotism" all they want, but I firmly believe Obama is the least American, most European presidential candidate ever. This little man has no idea what made America great. His vision of America's ideals is exactly what is destroying American liberty and individual rights.

If a speech called "A New Era of Service" had been given on Independence Day 100 years ago, the audience would have been baffled. Why, they would have wondered, is this man on the anniversary of American independence speaking about servitude to the state? The bafflement would have quickly given way to anger and outrage. The audience would have considered such a speech as nothing less than an evil, nihilist attack on the essence of America.

America has declined so far in 100 years that we are about to elect as President a man who personifies everything the Founding Fathers fought against. The Founders fought for individualism; Obama fights for collectivism. The Founders fought for liberty; Obama fights for statism. The Founders fought for the pursuit of happiness; Obama fights for individual sacrifice. The Founders fought for our national self-interest against foreign tyrants; Obama wants to appease our enemies so the rest of the world will think better of us. The Founders fought for lower taxes; Obama fights for higher taxes.

Even more: in the founding era saying what you mean and meaning what you say were held as virtues. The Plain Dealer of Cleveland was named in that spirit. Obama, on the other hand, has bragged that his words are a "rorschach test" -- they mean different things to different people.

Obama thinks that a life lived in the selfish pursuit of profit is a life without meaning. Only by sacrificing to the collective does one achieve noble values. Only by selflessly serving others is one moral.

Read his speech if you can stomach it. Obama proposes an array of new programs and expansion of old programs, none of which will do a damned thing but waste money. It will all be make work and symbolism. College kids will think of the 100 hours they must spend in "community service" as jerk-off time they must endure to get a degree. Obama's idealism will only lead to greater cynicism as young Americans learn that what our culture holds as a moral value is a useless waste of time, whereas the important, selfish values of pursuing a career and making money are sneered at. When drudgery is praised and meaningful work is belittled, people give up on morality and fall into cynicism and despair. From there it's a small step to booze, drugs, and a life of mindless, range-of-the-moment hedonism.

Obama's program for a new era of service must fail because the underlying morality, altruism, is entirely at odds with the requirements of man's life. Man must selfishly pursue his values to live and be happy, but altruism demands the sacrifice of higher values to lesser values. If followed consistently, which few can do, altruism leads to death. Altruists depend on people being inconsistent; it is a morality that depends on people being immoral by its own standards in order to remain alive.

And if you want to be really depressed, consider this: John McCain is just as bad. He extols sacrificing for something greater than ourselves. He has contempt for the profit motive. He is as ignorant of economics as Obama. Just about the only good thing that can be said about McCain is that he doesn't come off as an effete European like Obama. His heroism in the military is unquestionable.

Whichever fool lies and smears his way to the Oval Office, America will enter a new era of servitude.

UPDATE: Greg Ransom on Obama's program for a new American slavery:

THIS ISN'T THE ROAD TO SERFDOM, THIS IS SERFDOM. National service mandated by the state is what Europe had for centuries. It was called serfdom. For example, in France, citizens were required to perform public service building and repairing roads and other public projects for hundreds and thousands of hours a year. Serfdom wasn't eliminated in France until the French revolution, one of the "liberty" parts of that revolution. It was largely the American revolution which inspired this escape from serfdom. Indeed, the American revolution was all about escaping from the European model of servitude, with the American's insisting that even very moderate taxation without representation was a form of oppressive servitude. Incredibly, Barack Obama somehow believes that advocacy of a return to European style serfdom is a good way to celebrate the American Declaration of Independence from the oppression of English tyranny.

UPDATE II: I mistakenly wrote that Obama calls his words a "rorschach test." It would be correct to write that he thinks of himself as a "blank screen." Robert Tracinski used the whole Obama quote in HBL:

I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.

OCON: Q&A Session with Leonard Peikoff

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

As many readers know, Dr. Leonard Peikoff gave a special Q&A session for attendees of OCON 2008 on July 2, 2008. I've chosen to summarize a few selected questions, not necessarily in the order that they were asked. These are paraphrases from my notes and not verbatim quotes, so any errors or inadvertent inaccuracies are purely my own, not his. He took a mixture of nearly 40 written and spoken questions. The session lasted 90 minutes, with a 5 minute intermission halfway through.

He and the ARI established a few ground rules ahead of time. In particular, he stated that he wouldn't comment on the 2008 Presidential election. He also gave an update on the status of his forthcoming book on the DIM hypothesis as well as his podcasting activities. Overall, he was in an cheerful benevolent mood, and there were many touches of humor that I can't easily capture in this blog post. His mind was razor sharp, and it was good to see him at his best.

I don't know if an audio recording of this session will be subsequently released as a CD from the Ayn Rand Bookstore or on his podcast. If I learn more, I'll post an update.

My own comments will be in square brackets ("[]").

=====

Book update: The book is going both "badly" and well. It is going "badly" in the sense that he has completed a preliminary draft of the entire book, but now has to do a lot of heavy editing of the earlier chapters.

It is going well in the sense that he is now fully convinced of the correctness of his DIM hypothesis, based on the research he has done. And he is enjoying the writing process and is happy with the quality of the work. The book should be completed by Christmas 2010 at the very latest.

Podcast update: He enjoys doing the podcast tremendously. He is pleased with the quality of the questions and believes that the questions submitted are of better quality than in the past. He is also happy with the improved audio quality. He hopes that his answers are spurring his listeners to pursue some of these ideas in greater depth by looking for more information in the rest of the Objectivist literature. Also, he finds the podcasting to be a nice break from his book writing.

The podcasts will now be available on iTunes, which any users can subscribe to for free!

[I think this is terrific news, since this will make it easier to transfer files back and forth from my iPod, rather than having to do the downloads through the Peikoff.com website.]

Q) What philosophical or cultural trend is the most dangerous?

A) Religion.

Q) Will the rise of environmentalism and the subsequent loss of freedoms bring us to a society like that portrayed in Anthem?

A) Yes and no. Environmentalism does pose a danger to our freedoms. But the society depicted in Anthem is a fictional one which projects the idea of collectivism in its purest form. In our case, he believes that a different bad outcome would be more likely -- one in which we are ruled by a Pope rather than a "Council of Scholars".

Q) Who are the "low hanging fruit" most likely to be receptive to Objectivist ideas, i.e., the best targets to reach?

A) In his experience, young people between ages 17-29. Before age 17, they are generally too young and not ready to digest these ideas. After age 30, they are more likely to stop thinking as they will have finished deciding their basic values. With respect to specific professions, he's noticed that engineers, computer people, and doctors seem to be disproportionately represented in Objectivist circles.

Q) What are your favorite artworks in the following specific categories -- novel, play, painting, sculpture, and song?

A) His favorites are:

Novel - Atlas Shrugged
Play - Cyrano de Bergerac
Painting - The Creation of Adam (Michelangelo)
Sculpture - The Dying Slave (Michelangelo)
Song - He doesn't know which is his favorite, but it's not "God Save the King" (the first song title that popped into his head when he heard the question).

Q) As a gay Objectivist, there seem to be a disproportionate number of other gays in the Objectivist community relative to the population at large. Is there an explanation for this?

A) "Is that a problem?" [Lots of laughter, and the questioner said, no that wasn't a problem at all for him.] Basically, it's hard to know if there actually is over-representation or under-representation given the small numbers. Perhaps if there were 20 million Objectivists we could ask the question and attempt an answer. But the numbers are currently too small to attempt to answer this question or even to know if the premise is true.

Q) Is there a proper role for government in environmental issues where there are collective action questions -- for instance, issue of pollution where no single source causes a provable harm, but the aggregate of millions of polluters is a source of harm?

A) If a single polluter can be shown to be the cause of a provable harm to another, then this should be addressed through the courts -- i.e., the polluter can be sued for damages.

On the other hand, in the cases where an industrial society inherently generates in aggregate a level of pollution that may cause harm, but no single individual's pollution is a provable source of harm, then there is no role for government intervention. A person can't take the benefits of living in an industrial society (such as advanced medical technology that lets people to live to age 75 rather than dying at age 25), then also complain that the government should stop the Los Angeles smog that causes his eyes to water.

If you don't want to live in LA, then the proper response is to move away, not ask the government to impose environmental regulations.

[Obviously this opens up a number of interesting secondary issues, but he did not pursue this further.]

Q) Is the word "Shrugged" in "Atlas Shrugged" a verb or an adjective?

A) It's a verb. "I can't imagine a sentence in which 'shrugged' would be used an adjective."

Q) Is it legitimate for a person to make a career of theoretical science, without regard to practical application? Or must there be some attempt at application for this to be a legitimate activity?

A) As an individual scientist, this can be a totally legitimate activity. This can be part of a division of labor where someone pursues advances in theory without necessarily concerning himself with how it can be applied, whereas others use their minds to develop applications.

In a free society, someone concerned purely with theory might find it difficult to obtain funding, since most businesses would want to pay for research with some eventual practical applications. But if he had his own source of private funding or if that was how the division of labor was made, then this is fine.

From the perspective of man as such, it is not a legitimate endeavour to pursue pure theory without regard for any practical application that would benefit man's life in some way. But from the perspective of the individual scientist, a division of labor into theoreticians vs. applied scientists can be entirely legitimate.

Q) What is your favorite episode of The Twilight Zone?

A) The episode "A Nice Place to Visit", because of the deep philosophical content presented in an engaging way accessible to all viewers. He also likes the Twilight Zone series as a whole due to the good dialogue and characterizations, as well as brilliant plot twists.

[Larry Salzman notes that the full 30-minute episode can be found here on the CBS website. Thanks, Larry!]

Q) Do you have any advice on how to achieve cultural change for the better?

A) Nothing more than Ayn Rand has already said in her essay, "What Can One Do?". Namely, to write, speak out and advocate good ideas in the appropriate contexts.

Highlights from OCON: Day 5

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here are highlights from the Ayn Rand Institute's summer conference (a.k.a. OCON), Day Five:

Tore Boeckmann on "The Novels of Ayn Rand and the Metaphysics of Value"

• Tore Boeckmann offered a fascinating look at the concrete values in Ayn Rand's fiction in relation to the theme of the work, particularly the significance of the incidental elements or aspects of those values, such as Howard Roark's gaunt, angular figure. This lecture offered a level of literary analysis well beyond my meager understanding, so I plan to be on the lookout for this new complexity when I next reread Ayn Rand's novels, particularly her more developed works The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Onkar Ghate on "Cultural Movements: Creating Change"

• Onkar Ghate gave a fantastically chilling lecture on the rise of religion in American politics, beginning with the Goldwater campaign. His case for the deliberate infiltration of politics by evangelical Christianity was clear, systematic, and undeniable. Further details may be found in a source used by Dr. Ghate himself, one that I've repeatedly recommended, namely With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America by sociologist William Martin.
  
  
• Toward the end of his lecture, Dr. Ghate observed the following, as recorded in my abbreviated notes: Increasing numbers of Christians are recognizing the contemporary evangelical Christianity is too easy, too soft: it doesn't recognize man's inherently sinful nature. Moreover, the younger evangelicals are not interested in the free markets espoused by the older generation but rather in environmentalism and poverty. So religion needs environmentalism -- and vice versa. Environmentalism offers religion its necessary doomsday scenario according to which your mere existence is a sin. Religion offers environmentalism a widely-held philosophic foundation, as Yaron Brook argued a few days ago. Until now, religionists have been primarily concerned with the spiritual realm, i.e. with sex. Yet many recognize that the message of Christianity is far more broad, far more reaching than that. Correspondingly, environmentalism has been primarily concerned with the material realm, i.e. with industry. The merger of them is a natural outgrowth of their current trajectories -- and very dangerous.

Academic Panel:

• As usual, the Academic Panel had tons of news to report, but since I arrived late and without my computer, I didn't take notes. If you want to know what's happening with Ayn Rand in academia, I'd recommend donating to the newly-expanded Anthem Foundation, so that you can enjoy the regular progress reports.

Now, bedtime!

Jefferson's Last Letter

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Thomas Jefferson was invited to attend a celebration in Washington DC on July 4, 1826, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He had to decline due to reasons of health, but he did write the following in his last letter:

I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made.

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.

That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.

(Via Marginal Revolution.)

Quick Roundup 340

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

Happy Independence Day!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Michael Berliner's editorial on the significance of Independence Day is required reading for this holiday. And by "required", I mean, "by the facts of reality", which is really the only thing that one can properly speak of as being a "requirement", Obama and McCain to the contrary.

Too bad for us that no matter who wins the Presidency, we will have someone in office who is completely at odds with what makes this nation great:

Fourth of July speeches are a time to celebrate what makes America great, to speak about America's ideals. It is notable that Obama can see nothing worth talking about but statist-collectivist-altruist ideals. For a holiday that celebrates America's independence, Obama focuses on the opposite, on our supposed dependence on on another. For a holiday that traditionally celebrates freedom, Obama advocates expanded service to the state.

I submit that there has never been a candidate for President of a major party who so grossly misunderstood the meaning of America as Barack Obama. Liberals can scream that I'm "questioning his patriotism" all they want, but I firmly believe Obama is the least American, most European presidential candidate ever. [Too bad this isn't what some children are thinking of when the slam their peers betters for "acting white". --ed] This little man has no idea what made America great. His vision of America's ideals is exactly what is destroying American liberty and individual rights.
...

... John McCain is just as bad. He extols sacrificing for something greater than ourselves. He has contempt for the profit motive. He is as ignorant of economics as Obama. Just about the only good thing that can be said about McCain is that he doesn't come off as an effete European like Obama. His heroism in the military is unquestionable.

I differ with Myrhaf only in his evaluation of McCain's not coming off as an effete European as being bad. I say that the more a man's demeanor matches his evil ideals, the better, since he will be easier to oppose.

Let's enjoy the Fourth, and take the breather to remind ourselves that freedom is worth fighting for.

Brasilia -- or Nippopolis?

It seems that almost every time I hear Brazil being discussed, there is a heavy element of left-wing fantasy projected onto the country, which I always find extremely annoying.

It was in part to indulge this annoyance that I read about the fiasco of urban planning that serves as that nation's capitol. One passage in particular made me laugh because I'd recently watched a South Park episode it reminded me of.

Although he was a disciple of Le Corbusier's and clearly embraced modernism, Niemeyer, with his love of curves and organic shapes, offered a jaunty alternative to the geometric severity of the International Style (a "monotonous and repetitive architecture ... so easy to create that it quickly spread from the United States to Japan," as he characterizes it [Slam capitalism for sins of the left. Check. --ed] in his own, often repetitive, memoir). Confirming Niemeyer's assertions, Philippou repeatedly shows how eroticism inflected Niemeyer's approach --"form follows feminine" is one of the architect's many, somewhat tiresome, pronouncements -- and how that approach quite literally grew out of his girl-watching (something of a dirty old man, he's forever explaining his architecture by sketching women's breasts and backsides for mock-scandalized journalists). [It isn't "sexism" if a nihilist does this. --ed] He was obviously also inspired by the undulating beaches and topography of his native Rio de Janeiro (his longtime studio, in the penthouse of an Art Deco landmark building, takes in famously sweeping views of Copacabana and Sugarloaf). [bold added]

No. The image at right isn't one of his drawings, and I'm sure his modernistic impulses prevented Niemeyer from indulging himself that literally, but were Brasilia a bit more like the "cheesing" scenes (probably not work-safe) from "Major Boobage", Brasilia would be quite the tourist trap!

Having gotten that out of my system, I have to admit that I do find some elements of the architecture shown in the article appealing, but still, the description of Brasilia as a city sounds very unappealing to me.

Now that I have your attention, ...

... consider helping to put a stop to urban planning where your efforts will be most likely to bear fruit: The Ad Hoc Committee for Property Rights of Houston, Texas -- which is working to keep the largest American city not to have zoning free of zoning-- accepts donations and has a mailing list. If you live in or near Houston and can't afford to donate, you should at least join the mailing list. Property rights are once again under assault here.

And be sure to read its Independence Day post of quotes about property rights. I particulary like the one by Calvin Coolidge.

This group beat zoning ten years ago, and deserves your support.

New York Invents Internet Looting

At least phishers and spammers can't take anyone's money by government fiat.

The Empire State has found a new way to subject its citizens to even more taxes. New York tax officials are looking to fill budget shortfalls by looking beyond state borders. As part of its budget, New York passed a first-of-its kind law that saddles sales tax collection burdens on catalog and online retailers in every state of the country.

As of this month, Assembly Bill 9807 requires out-of-state retailers who sell products to New Yorkers to register as vendors with New York tax officials. Civil and criminal penalties now face retailers who fail to comply. What's more, out-of-state retailers refusing to register have already been threatened with possible auditing and charges for years of back taxes.

...

Given the flatly unconstitutionally nature of AB 9807, maybe New York's interstate tax grab might really be a tax smash-and-grab. It may be a long while before Amazon's court case brings New York's new tax on out-of-state online retailers to a grinding halt. But in that window of time, New York could find itself benefiting from ill-gotten gains along with any other states that decide to join it. [bold added]

As Dismuke, who told me about this put it, "This is SICK."

-- CAV

DISINTEGRATED IRAQ

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

It is not strange that Iraq ended up like quagmire as it is today, if you look at a history without something connecting the population. The only stable group was the Jewish population, but they were put in exile in 1948. Britain started out to protect its interest in the region after the occupation of the three main cities (Basrah, Baghdad and Mosül) that had belonged as provinces of the Ottoman Empire. First the British wanted to secure the oil sources in Iran and the privileged trading position, but then it gradually gave in and gave the Iraqis pseudo-independence step by step. The only thing that the Iraqis could rally for, was the resentment against the British and the Western world. A form of nationalism called Pan-Arabism came out of this situation.

It is clear from the lecture that Iraq has had a slow development and came too late. The only glimmer of hope was governor (1869 - 1871) Midhat Pasha.

Somewhat related: My post, DECK OF CARDS.

The Trials of Tears

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

Via Glenn Reynolds (who notes a hilarious line by Eric Scheie) comes the following example of legal jihad, a type of warfare against civilization I have discussed here before that has, incidentally, been endorsed by the government officials of Islamic countries right under the noses of American officials.

[A] small business owner in England (a woman who operates a "urban and edgy," and "funky" hair salon) was sued by a devoutly religious Muslim woman [pictured at right --ed] who refused to work without her head covered. Which means the owner has "had to shell out $8,000 for hurting a veiled Muslim job applicant's feelings"....

Scheie goes on to note the obvious incongruity of someone opposed to the entire idea of women even displaying their hair deciding to take up such a sinful line of work and adds:

The owner here was placed in a classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position. Had she hired this whining, covered woman, and had her trendy urban hipster customers felt uncomfortable about having their hair cut by a self-proclaimed prude, they'd have most likely not have complained, because trendiness is infected with political correctness.

But the thing is, a haircut is a personal service. A very personal service. If you're in the least bit uncomfortable (as I have been with several haircutters), you won't go back. No one wants a confrontation even under ordinary circumstances. But when you add PC to the mix, it becomes even less likely. So, had the owner hired her and watched her customer base dwindle, what then? Fire Bushra? She'd be sued for even more. [bold added]

As with the "human rights commissions" in Canada, we see resolute jihadists making it difficult, with the help of non-objective laws, for ordinary people to carry out the normal, day-to-day business of their lives.

In every case these are laws premised on the notion of establishing a "level playing field", but which, since they do so at the expense of protecting individual rights -- There is no "right" to remain unoffended or be handed a job. -- end up begging to be taken advantage of by the dregs of humanity.

This occurred in England, but similar types of laws exist everywhere in the West, and the cumulative effect of a torrent of such lawsuits is clearly to make non-Moslems afraid to impede the whims of Moslems. The way to fight back is to demand relentlessly, through every available avenue, starting today, the repeal of any law that fails to protect individual rights. In the meantime, we must work for a more rational culture, where the concept of individual rights is fully understood and appreciated.

-- CAV

Highlights from OCON: Day 4

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here are highlights from the Ayn Rand Institute's summer conference (a.k.a. OCON), Day Four:

Lin Zinser on "Health-Care Activism: Saving the Life Savers," Class 3 of 3:

• Lin discussed three broad topics today: coalitions, tactics, and politics and intellectual activism.
  
  
• Many self-described advocates of free markets, politicians and advocates, are not genuine defenders of free markets at all. They are in favor of all kinds of regulations and entitlements. At best, they wish to reduce some regulations and limit some entitlements. By clearly advocating for fully free markets, FIRM has made clear what a free market in medicine really means.
  
  
• Lin offered six points for effective intellectual activism at the end of the lecture:
  
  
  1. Do what you are comfortable with.
     
  2. Have clearly stated goals with measurable deadlines.
     
  3. Use moral arguments and communicate at the appropriate level.
     
  4. Get on a mailing list -- create your own or join OActivists -- for editing, moral support, and alerts.
     
  5. Develop credibility and expertise by studying the issues and stating your views in a well-reasoned manner.
     
  6. If you have a desire to change a group's fundamental mission or platform, investigate the group and attend meetings. There may be a group where you could use moral philosophical arguments to formulate or change the policy for the entire group

Tara Smith on "The Menace of Pragmatism"

• Tara Smith delivered yet another fantastic lecture, particularly noteworthy for her passion on the subject.
  
  
• Smith began with as clear a description of pragmatism as possible: the concept rather fuzzy by its very nature, by the design of its advocates. She identified four features of pragmatism as a common method of thought (as opposed to a system of philosophy):
  
  
  1. Range-of-the-moment thinking
     
  2. Refusal or inability to think in principle
     
  3. Resistance to identifying things by their fundamental nature
     
  4. All options are kept open in decision-making
     
  
  
• Smith then sketched the pervasive influence of pragmatism in the culture. (That was compelling but depressing.)
  
  
• Next, Smith discussed the appeal and error of pragmatism. Pragmatism is particularly dangerous, Smith argued, because it sells itself as reasonable, rational, and practical. Yet in fact, pragmatism rejects reality, it rejects rationality, and it rejects practicality. It does so by rejecting long-range, conceptual, principled thought, i.e. the basic means of human survival.
  
  
• Finally, Smith offered some suggestions for combating pragmatism in others and in oneself. Here are her suggestions, in brief:
  
  1. Identity it. Call it when you see it, not just to yourself and others. Show that it's not practical.
     
  2. Police the meaning of words. Don't let yourself be spun by the labels of others that reinforce pragmatism. Don't allow them to claim the mantle of being rational or practical. Don't allow the term "reasonable" to be a fuzzy sort-of kind of non-rationality.
     
  3. Defend rational idealism. Stock up instances of idealism to show that they are practical. Also, don't allow false idealism to go unchallenged.
     
  4. Don't give up. Remind yourself of what's at stake: to surrender to pragmatism is to surrender to the rule of irrationality.
  
  
• To combat pragmatism in ourselves:
  
  1. Beware the pull of the present. The present can seem like the most important consideration. It takes deliberate effort to think long-range.
     
  2. Beware of the pull of the seemingly practical. Understand the practical necessity of rational principles. Adherence to principles is always the most practical, even if not always easy or convenient.
     
  3. Distinguish legitimate from illegitimate compromise. Be honest in your decision-making. Probe your own doubts. Listen for potential rationalization. Persevere in sorting through difficult cases. Go back to fundamentals, remind yourself of basic principles.
     
  4. Know thyself, and know thyself better. Identify your own vulnerabilities and blind-spots. Know what helps keep you on principle.
     
  5. Read and re-read Ayn Rand's works.

Pat Corvini: "Two, Three, Four, and All That: The Sequel," Class 3 of 3:

• Unfortunately, Pat Corvini was a bit rushed in her last lecture. So I'm clear on her view of generation of the irrational numbers, but I'm still a bit murky on the problems with the postulational method. (I can see the big picture, but not enough of the details. However, from what I do understand, the problems with attempting to generate irrational numbers via the postulational method seem hugely insurmountable.) I hope to review my notes with Paul sometime tomorrow.

Debi Ghate and Tom Bowden: "How to Be an Agent of Cultural Change"

• A nice presentation of some of the basic steps a person can take to contribute to positive cultural change. Most of it was familiar ground to me, but I did take good notes. I'll be posting those to OActivists tomorrow.

Leonard Peikoff: "Q&A":

• I didn't take many notes on this Q&A, so I don't have much of substance to say about it. However, Dr. Peikoff was in fine form. He was as intellectually sharp as ever, plus in a delightfully friendly and benevolent mood. He was particularly generous in answering my question about privacy lies -- or rather in explaining why he couldn't answer my question because he really couldn't say under what conditions lies to protect privacy might be legitimate because it depends too much on the particulars of the situation at hand.
  
  
• Also, he reported that his book is going very well, that he's written a full draft o the whole text, and that he expects to be finished by the end of 2010 at the very latest.

OBloggers:

• The informal get-together for Objectivist bloggers (a.k.a. OBloggers) was all kinds of fun. I'll have to arrange a similar event in advance next year rather than at the last minute.

Now it's finally time for bed! I'm beat!

ARC Website

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

At the "State of ARI," Yaron Brook announced that the East Coast office of ARI will be opening in September 2008, known as the Ayn Rand Center For Individual Rights.

Besides having its own website with lots of excellent content (including OpEds, videos, listings of events), they have also received permission to post two of her classic essays on individual rights and government. This is a tremendous resource for those of us who wish to point interested people towards the Objectivist position on the proper role and scope of government.

The two essays are:

• Man's Rights
  
• The Nature of Government

Quick Roundup 339

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

Well! Who'd have known that getting a tooth extracted could take so much out of a man?

I went in to work as usual yesterday morning, took the short walk to the oral surgeon, and learned (not to my surprise) that the tooth had to go sooner rather than later. That, and my desire to get it over with found me returning to the office after lunchtime to get that show on the road. A coworker drove me home and, except for a couple of email checks and half of a movie, I slept soundly.

Or was it the lingering effects of the anesthetic that kept me in la-la land? One of the tips on the patient post-op instructions was "Don't make any important decisions. You may change your mind the next day." Uh-huh! That anesthetic was pretty potent stuff, given my general loopiness when I was awake.

Whatever the case, it was with the aid of science that I avoided being aware of what would have otherwise been a very painful ordeal, and now, with the aid of technology, that I present the following roundup of very thought-provoking posts.

How NOT to Persuade the Merely Mistaken or Ignorant

If you read nothing else today, drop whatever you're doing and read Monica's reaction to a particularly bad post by the economist George Reisman that is addressed to environmentalists. Her central message is something that any serious intellectual activist should remember:

I think it's helpful for people to try to put themselves in the mindset they were in before they discovered Objectivism. Seriously -- just try remembering what it was like back then. Personally, as an environmentally informed person, property rights was a difficult thing for me to get my brain around three or four years ago. I still struggle with it. ...

...

[I]f you want to make Objectivism appeal to people, you have to appeal to their values. Obviously we can't appeal to irrational values or water down the message or try to make everyone happy. Still, I'd like to see more appeals to values rather than the ranting. I've been very impressed with Yaron Brook and Onkhar Ghate's videos on YouTube. They strike me as people that are very respectful of others even if they disagree with a person's views.

I think we owe it to ourselves to reach out to non-Objectivists in the politest ways possible, without watering down the message – but that means a minimum of online rants, rhetorical questions, and general snarkiness directed at an entire group of people who label themselves a certain way. I’m not perfect and I’ve fallen into this trap on occasion, no doubt, particularly in my early blogging – but I’m going to try to avoid it in the future. The world is in serious trouble. The culture needs to be changed to a thinking culture. What can we do to accomplish that? Rants are fun and cathartic, but what is the purpose of them? Online, you can't guarantee that your entire audience is Objectivist. (In fact, one hopes it isn’t.) And such preaching usually has a predictable result: people will tune you out. [bold and link added]

This is an excellent application of principles I have written about before to a specific example.

My thanks go to Monica for having taken the time to post this. As I once put it, "There are times to express moral condemnation, but the opening of an intellectual discussion is not one of them." That would also go for slamming an entire intellectual stand that your intellectual opponent may not hold consistently or whose full implications he may not realize.

(And if an opponent is dishonest or beyond reach, why waste time pretending that he is even open to debate?)

The Nihilism of George Carlin

I have to admit not even knowing who George Carlin was until his recent death. And, after hearing him lauded as a countercultural icon, I suspected that I wouldn't find him that funny.

That suspicion was confirmed when I recently viewed a couple of videos of him, including one where he made slams --intelligent I will admit -- against religion.

"The man's a damned hippie!" was my gut reaction. I am very averse to anything that smacks of the counterculture, and his whole "vibe" ruined for me even his good jokes. Joseph Kellard, it seems, would agree with me. After admitting that Carlin had his comedic merits, Kellard weighs in with this:

[M]ostly I could not watch Carlin because he spewed a seething hatred toward man as such. Despite being an atheist who understood the evils of religion, this view was part of his broader perspective that human beings are evil. Apparently, Carlin never let go of the idea of Original Sin....

This is more than just a gut reaction on his part, though.

Obama's Promise to Be Unjust

Myrhaf comments at length on something that has bothered me ever since I heard it: Obama's "promise" not to question anyone's patriotism.

He won't question the patriotism of a man who served in Vietnam and spent six years as a POW. That's awfully big of Obama. In return, any mention of the following is off limits: Obama's communist father; his communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis; his terrorist friends, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; his days as a "community organizer," which some define as a leftist rabble rouser; his 20-year relationship with spiritual mentor and anti-American preacher, Jeremiah Wright; his teaching the ideas of leftist radical Saul Alinski; his wife's anti-American statements; his flag pin controversy; his reluctance to hold his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. Bringing up any of these could come under heading, "questioning his patriotism." It's not a bad deal for Obama.

But his high-mindedness is specious because he has questioned the patriotism of others....

Smuggled in is the poisonous, implicit, anti-mind, central premise of the Left: That claiming certainty -- particularly moral certainty -- based on rational thought is a mortal sin.

I'd translate Obama's blather this way: "How do you know what America even is, let alone what someone someone else really thinks when all you have is what he says and does to go on, let alone whether you really can tell whether what you think he says is good (whatever that means) for America?" No. This doesn't make sense, nor is it supposed to, but Myrhaf does an excellent job of showing us what this attack on our moral certainty is supposed to accomplish.

This is simply the argument from intimidation with a disgustingly sweet coating, and it is moral certainty that is being cast as prejudice.

Quote of the Day

I don't intend to watch the movie she reviewed, but I enjoyed what Jennifer Snow had to say about about the intellectual efforts of today's self-proclaimed champions of culture and the intellect (aka, "uncultured boobs"):

[This movie] was a prime example of what happens when shallow uncultured boobs attempt to be "deep", "modern" or "controversial": you get a disgusting perverted retread of three-hundred-year-old philosophical theories that are none of those things.

Ah! Wanted has served a useful purpose! Time to move on....

-- CAV

The America Obama Loves

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

At the same time Obama gives a speech in which he whines that his patriotism has been questioned, he sends General Wesley Clark out to question McCain's military service.

It's not the first attack on McCain's service:

Democrats have belittled it on several occasions now. In May, it was Bill Gillespie, another Obama backer in Georgia and a candidate for the House. In the same month, Senator Tom Harkin questioned McCain’s mental state for having willingly served in the military. In April, Jay Rockefeller accused McCain of being more or less a coward for being a military pilot, and again in May the New York Times quoted unnamed Senate colleagues of McCain suggesting that he didn’t understand the Vietnam War because he didn’t fight on the ground and spent most of it lounging around Hanoi in a POW camp.

Whoever is behind this strategy, it is idiotic and will backfire. Bringing up McCain's service at all makes Obama look bad. I'm sure I'm not the only American who has thought, "Who the hell is this leftist sissy to send out surrogates to attack McCain's military service?"

Is partisan revenge driving this smear campaign? The Swiftboat attack on Kerry was a phenomenal success that, as much as anything, defeated Kerry. The Democrats have not forgotten it and they desperately want to do the same thing to McCain. I suppose it would be too much for them to grasp that McCain and Kerry had rather different war experiences. McCain spent six years as a POW. Kerry spent a few months in Vietnam, then came back to America to throw away his medals, lie about US atrocities and compare our fighting men to Genghis Khan.

But don't question Kerry's patriotism. Sure, he made anti-American statements, but... look, just don't mention it. The rules are that any unpatriotic statements or gestures by any Democrat must not be identified. Do not say that the Emperor's dick is hanging out for all to see. If every last one of us does not evade reality, then we're "questioning patriotism," which must not be done.

Obama has laid down the rules in his speech:

I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.

He won't question the patriotism of a man who served in Vietnam and spent six years as a POW. That's awfully big of Obama. In return, any mention of the following is off limits: Obama's communist father; his communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis; his terrorist friends, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn; his days as a "community organizer," which some define as a leftist rabble rouser; his 20-year relationship with spiritual mentor and anti-American preacher, Jeremiah Wright; his teaching the ideas of leftist radical Saul Alinski; his wife's anti-American statements; his flag pin controversy; his reluctance to hold his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. Bringing up any of these could come under heading, "questioning his patriotism." It's not a bad deal for Obama.

But his high-mindedness is specious because he has questioned the patriotism of others:

...during the flag lapel pin flap, Obama said this:

"A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans’ benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?

"That is a debate I am very happy to have. We’ll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism."

Questioning one's patriotism is a horrible smear -- unless a Democrat questions a Republican's. Then it is valid.

The patriotism of leftists is questioned because they are unpatriotic. It's not like evil Republicans fabricate the issue out of thin air. If there were nothing there, the charges would not be so effective.

The whole patriotism issue is based on the more fundamental issue of leftist anti-Americanism, which is based on the yet more fundamental issues of leftist anti-capitalism, which is caused by leftist altruism, statism and collectivism. These are based on the more philosophical premises of moral relativism and subjectivism. Of course, political campaigns never focus on underlying philosophy, but on relatively trivial and symbolic subjects such as flag pins.

The shallowness of our political discussion works to the liberals' advantage. Obama can stop reasonable doubts about him with lines like:

...at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged - at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.

Instead of having to confront difficult, legitimate questions about leftist anti-Americanism and his life-long relations with communists and other radicals, Obama can dismiss it all as the patriotism issue. What a deal! Democrats must secretly wish another Joseph McCarthy would come along so they could make it all about him and deflect criticism from their candidate altogether.

****

Aside from Obama's defense of his patriotism, the rest of his speech on America is rather mediocre, welfare state boilerplate. Powerline has noted the gaffes that would make headlines if said by a Republican. After all of Obama's flip-flops and disassociating with long-time allies that become controversial, his words have little weight.

The implication of the speech's title, "The America We Love," is that there is another America we do not love, one we must never forget, even when we praise our country. Moral relativism won't let leftists think of America as essentially good; it has its good and bad, and neither is more important than the other. Obama, feeling magnanimous with the Fourth of July coming, focuses for the moment on America's greatness, but also notes the bad side for all his liberal friends who are uncomfortable with all that barbaric flag waving.

Obama equates patriotism with sacrifice to the state.

...the call to sacrifice for the country's greater good remains an imperative of citizenship. Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount.

Obama sees 9/11 as a missed opportunity to expand the power of the state at the individual's expense. The "call to sacrifice" is the call of those in power to make the people voluntarily enslave themselves to the state. Those in power have nothing to lose from this! All the statists need is for people to accept the altruist premise that selfishness is bad. 2,000 years of Christianity make this a widespread idea in the West.

Obama expands on his vision of a new American slavery, a vision he shares with McCain:

In spite of this absence of leadership from Washington, I have seen a new generation of Americans begin to take up the call. I meet them everywhere I go, young people involved in the project of American renewal; not only those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands, but those who are fighting for a better America here at home, by teaching in underserved schools, or caring for the sick in understaffed hospitals, or promoting more sustainable energy policies in their local communities.

I believe one of the tasks of the next Administration is to ensure that this movement towards service grows and sustains itself in the years to come. We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps. We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program...

Before long, no one but the children of the very rich would be able to afford college without suffering two years of servitude to the state. This is the moral ideal that excites Obama as the nation is about to celebrate Independence Day -- a holiday that originally celebrated the opposite of Obama's vision.

Obama is something of an undistinguished cipher. Geraldine Ferraro, though reviled by the left, was right when she stated the obvious fact that he got the nomination because he is black. Ideologically, Obama is just the latest mediocre representative of the collectivist counter-revolution to the American Revolution. The American Revolution stood for the Enlightenment values of individual rights, liberty and prosperity. The counter-revolution stands for collectivism, statism and sacrifice.

Highlights from OCON: Day 3

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I don't have much to report from the third day of the Ayn Rand Institute's summer conference (a.k.a. OCON). The morning was free, so Paul and I only had two lectures to attend:

Pat Corvini: "Two, Three, Four, and All That: The Sequel," Class 2 of 3:

• I struggled a bit with the material today, particularly the postulational method of defining various kinds of numbers, but after some discussion with Paul, that's all reasonably clear to me. However, I haven't the foggiest idea how Pat's objective approach to number will shed light on Cantor -- although I'm sure that she has something very good up her sleeve.

Dina Schein Federman's lecture "Ayn Rand as Intellectual Activist":

• This lecture was good -- and even relevant to questions about activism today. But it wasn't eye-popping like her 2006 lecture on Ayn Rand's Home Atmosphere. In that lecture, the content was wholly new, based on Ayn Rand's family's letters to her, none of which were even translated until Dina began her work on them. That lecture was interesting in its own right, but I also enjoyed it as a total refutation Barbara Branden's very negative portrayal of Ayn Rand's relationship with her family.

Tomorrow is the final day of the first half of the conference. It's going to be busy. We'll start with the final lecture of Lin Zinser's course, then Tara Smith's lecture on pragmatism, then the final lecture of Pat Corvini's course, then the ARI Open House including the Workshop on Cultural Change, then the Q&A with Leonard Peikoff, and finally an informal meeting of Objectivist Bloggers.

I'm tired just thinking about it!

The Next 3 OCONs

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Yaron Brook announced the dates and locations for the next three OCON conferences:

2009: July 3-11, Boston, MA, Seaport Hotel
2010: July 2-10, Las Vegas, NV, Red Rock Resort
2011: July 1-9, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Marriott Harbor Beach Resort

Notes from the UnderCON

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

Session one is almost over at OCON 2008! Diana over at Noodlefood is giving some great perspectives on the sessions at OCON, and I'll do that too. However, I also thought I'd give those of you who've never been a sense of what additional values exists at such events.

I was talking with Kathryn Oshay at the opening reception and she mentioned the wondeful feeling at the idea that here we were together with almost 400 people, all who shared our values. The sense of community and optimism is not to be understated.

Time is at a premium. Every meal finds me interacting and meeting some new Objectivist I'd not met before. Connections made yesterday turn into new connections today. Alex Epstein, Nick Provenzo, Ray Niles, the list goes on, as well as a ton of friends I'd known from OO.net yet never met personally.

And the converstations! I think I've had more substantive conversations about a wide spread of topics in the last 4 days than I normally manage to in 4 months! And the tone is different. Here I'm sharing ideas and news with people who I don't have to convince or persuade or attempt to teach my perspective. Instead it's about adding depth to my understanding, motivating others to think about their specific concerns in different ways, and figuring out ways to make a difference together.

And of course the conversations extend late into the night and early in the morning. Since we're still on East Coast time, my roomie, Ray Niles, and I seem to start out every morning with an engaging 2 hour conversation on some series of topics as a way to energize the morning before a start to the day's lectures. Today is was the intricacies of analyzing the Enron debacle, and thoughts about how ideas proliferate in the culture, as well as what sort of blog topics we're getting ready to post as a result of the conference.

For those who want a little relaxation thrown in, the conferences are always at a nice resort and blocks of free time do exist. Today I managed to waste the entire morning lounging in the spa, getting a wondrous massage, and indulging in a few simple pleasures.

And finally, the core of the conference is the course work. My session one agenda includes some great courses:

The beautiful Lisa Van Damme has brilliantly convinced me that there is value in reading great, if flawed, literature, and even though Russian Short Stories might make me want to slit my wrists, I should refrain from doing so.

Andrew Lewis, in his engaging manner is helping me understand how the intellectual awakening of the Renaissance began, and how Aristotle's ideas proliferated in the 14th and 15th centuries.

Finally, with his amazing ability to deal with the most basic issues in any field, Harry Binswanger is turning his intellect and microscope on the field of Economics, essentializing the basic tenets of that field and their cruicial linkage back to philosophy.

And now I'm ready for session two. More later. I have to go to sleep now! Wish you were here. Hope you do too.

Jihad by the Numbers

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In his masterful second volume study of Hitler, Hitler, 1936-1945: Nemesis, Ian Kershaw discusses a phenomenon called “working towards the Führer,” in which every Nazi Party organization, member and office automatically, with little or no prompting or prodding by Hitler or his inner circle, worked to realize the ends and policies articulated by Hitler before and after he rose to power in 1933. It was automatic, because to disagree with or have reservations about a single, even minor aspect of Nazi ideology was to court reprimand, censure, dismissal, or even death. Agreement with those ends and policies was nearly a secondary motivation behind any Party member’s actions. He was compelled to act, regardless of the consequences. The ideology commanded it, and the Führer’s will and vision were irresistible, because there was little or no self to resist them.

As Party members who disagreed or expressed reservations were dismissed, or abandoned the Party, fled, committed suicide, or were murdered, monsters of the first rank filled the vacuum to formulate and enact policies that more completely “worked towards the Führer,” monsters such as Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Göring, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and Joseph Goebbels. When all the checks within the Party against total irrationality in domestic and foreign policies were removed or fell into disrepute, total irrationality took over totally.

But the average Party member strived to satisfy Hitler, regardless of how minor or major the action and regardless if it stood to be acknowledged or rewarded. To be a true, loyal, above-suspicion Nazi meant the near total surrender of one’s ego, mind and self, and to substitute them with Hitler’s own.

Of course, an Ellsworth Toohey might say that the joke was on the rank-and-file Nazi: he would claim that Hitler was essentially selfless, and that what little mind Hitler possessed was founded on what he thought his followers and “the people” wanted and expected of him as prophet and dictator. Ayn Rand, in The Fountainhead, describes that phenomenon through Toohey:

“…A world of obedience and of unity. A world where the thought of each man will not be his own, but an attempt to guess the thought in the brain of his neighbor, who’ll have no thought of his own but an attempt to guess the thought of the next neighbor who’ll have no thought – and so on…around the globe. Since all must serve all. A world in which man will not work for so innocent an incentive as money, but for that headless monster – prestige. The approval of his fellows – their good opinion – the opinion of men who’ll be allowed to hold no opinion. An octopus, all tentacles and no brain….An average drawn upon zeroes….” (1).

It is no accident or fluke of history that Islamists – Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad, Saudi Wahhabists, the whole ménage of Islamists and jihadists -- admire both Hitler and Nazism. Their hatred of Jews and Israel is merely one facet of that pathology. As Nazism required the complete submission of the individual to Party ideology and an unthinking, unwavering deference to Hitler, Islam requires the complete submission of the individual to Islam and an unthinking, unwavering deference to Allah and Mohammed. Islamists have long recognized that both the method and the ends of Nazism were in complete agreement and practical accord with their own. The “mechanics” of a functioning Islam differ in no fundamental way from the “mechanics” of a functioning Nazism or any other brand of total collectivism, as described by Toohey above. (2)

(One historical note: Kershaw points out that Hitler once entertained the idea of solving the “Jewish Question” by helping to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, where all German and other European Jews would be forcibly “relocated” and presumably – hopefully – perish in a wasteland of desert and hostile Arabs. He dismissed the idea because he feared that such a state could possibly become a political adversary dedicated to destroying Germany. Historically, the ironic joke is on Hitler. He destroyed Germany and the Jews turned the wasteland into a productive, prosperous garden.)

With that in mind, here is a set of significant statistics forwarded to me by a friend. It charts the progression of Islamic jihad, both soft and hard methods, whose purpose is to establish a global caliphate, especially in the West.

It begins by stating:

“Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.”

I would disagree. It is definitely a religion and a political system combined. Any attempt to “separate” mosque and state would emasculate Islam. I have argued this point in past commentaries and will not dwell on it here. And cults, if not opposed by reason and kept by it on the far fringes of a civilized society, have a tendency to become religions that may become state policies. Ecology was once a “cult.” Today we have the Environmental Protection Agency.

It goes on to state:

“Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.”

Or a mask, or a ruse. But no one should doubt how seriously Islamists and Muslims in general take the religious component. Islam is a barbaric but fully integrated system, perhaps more lethally integrated than was Nazism.

“Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’”

I would defend anyone’s right to believe in Islam. The question is: How could one truly practice Islam without declaring jihad on others? After a Muslim has won the “internal struggle” or jihad within himself, the next step is to wage it against all others. To refrain from that part of jihad is to risk the accusation of being a slacker or pseudo-Muslim. From the first stage to the last, all such effort constitutes “working towards the Prophet and Allah.”

“When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agreed to ‘the reasonable’ Muslims demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source: CIA: The World Fact Book, 2007).

“As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country it will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone….”

Here is where it becomes interesting. Note throughout the exponential scale of Islamic influence as the percentage of Muslim population per country increases. Comments in square brackets are my corrective interjections.

 United States: 1.0
 Australia: 1.5
 Canada: 1.9
 China: 1.0-2.0
 Italy: 1.5
 Norway: 1.8

“At 2% and 3% they [Muslims] begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.”

 Denmark: 2.0
 Germany: 3.7
 United Kingdom: 2.7
 Spain: 4.0
 Italy: 4.6

“From 5% on they [Muslims] exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (“clean” by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves – along with threats for failure to comply (United States).”

 France: 8.0
 Philippines: 5.0
 Sweden: 5.0
 Switzerland: 4.3
 The Netherlands: 5.5
 Trinidad & Tobago: 5.8

“At this point, they [Muslims] will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, or Islamic law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

“When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris – car burning). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam, Denmark – Mohammed cartoons, murder of Theo van Gogh).”

 Guyana: 10.0
 India: 13.4
 Israel: 16.0
 Kenya: 10.0
 Russia: 10.0-15.0

The one anomaly in this set of statistics is Israel, which has not experienced uprisings and threats of violence. Its Arab or Muslim population enjoys equal political rights with Jewish Israelis. The suicide bombings and rocket attacks that have killed hundreds have been perpetrated by outsiders.

“After reaching 20% [of a population] expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

 Ethiopia: 32.8

“After 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:”

 Bosnia: 40.0
 Chad: 53.1
 Lebanon: 59.7

”From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and jizya, the tax placed on [conquered] infidels:”

 Albania: 70.0
 Malaysia: 60.4
 Qatar: 77.5
 Sudan: 70.0

“After 80%, expect state-run ethnic cleansing and genocide:”

 Bangladesh: 83.0
 Egypt: 90.0
 Gaza: 98.7
 Indonesia: 86.1
 Iran: 98.0
 Iraq: 97.0
 Jordan: 92.0
 Morocco: 98.7
 Pakistan: 97.0
 Palestine: 99.0
 Syria: 90.0
 Tajikistan: 90.0
 Turkey: 99.8
 United Arab Emirates: 96.0

I question the inclusion of “Palestine” in this set. “Palestine” simply means space occupied by stateless “Palestinians” in Gaza and the West Bank, and is the name of the state which Islamists wish to replace Israel, once it is destroyed. Turkey, after decades of having a secular, non-religious government, is beginning to turn “religious,” and seems to be yearning for the kind of Muslim government that cleansed the country in 1915 of non-Muslim Armenians in a genocide that predates the Holocaust.

“100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ – the Islamic House of Peace’ [more correctly, dar-al-Islam, or Land of Islam]. There is supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim.”

 Afghanistan: 100.0
 Saudi Arabia: 100.0
 Somalia: 100.0
 Yemen: 99.9

“Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

“’Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel.’ Leon Uris, The Haj.

“It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average[s] would indicate.

“Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book, Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat.”

Hammond’s book is sponsored by the Frontline Fellowship, a Christian organization, and the book itself was published by Christian Liberty Books. The Frontline website contains several endorsements of the book by clerics and missionaries. The quoted paragraphs above were “adapted” from Hammond’s book (by whom, is unknown), and not very professionally. The statistics themselves were compiled by the CIA and used in the book.

The first paragraph of the Frontline ad for the book reads:

“Dr. Peter Hammond’s new book…is a fascinating, well illustrated and thoroughly documented response to the relentless anti-Christian propaganda that has been generated by Muslim and Marxist groups and by Hollywood film makers….”

For a detailed exposé of Islam’s Marxist affiliation – as distinguished from its symbiosis with Nazism – see Daniel Pipes’ “[The Islamist-Leftist] Allied Menace,” of July 15.

So, regardless of the book’s Christian orientation, the statistics Hammond uses to cite the various Muslim populations in each country can be taken as reliable, as well as the prefatory remarks before each set of percentages. There is certainly a demonstrable and observable corollary between a country’s Muslim population and the influence it begins to have or has had on its government, politics and culture.

The Islamists are coolly “working towards the Prophet and Allah” as shown in the numbers above. Meanwhile, our policymakers appear to be a succession of compliant, pragmatic, non-judgmental zeroes blindly working towards the conquest and extinction of the West.

(1) The Fountainhead, pp. 667-668, Plume-Penguin Centennial Edition.
(2) “During the 1930s, Palestinian Arabs under the leadership of the Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, had embraced a great deal of Nazi ideology.” From Denis MacEoin’s “Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intolerance,” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2008.

The False Ending of Steyn's "Trial"

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

In a chilling must-read piece, David Warren of the Ottowa Citizen discusses some totalitarian machinery already in place in Canada and how it is being governed by left-wing enemies of individual rights.

He does so in the vein of providing a warning to his fellow Canadians: The end of (another of the three) Mark Steyn show-trials is only a tactical maneuver by the so-called Human Rights Commissions. They are far from considering the error of their ways and far from facing the abolishment they ultimately deserve.

The Ontario HRC had previously dismissed it: but with an outrageous statement from its chief commissioner, Barbara Hall, to the effect that Maclean's was guilty of publishing "hate," nonetheless. She regretted that her commission had no mandate to try the case, but looked forward to a time when this mandate would be extended.

A British Columbian "human rights" tribunal did, however, decide that it had jurisdiction over what a Toronto-based magazine could publish, and the show trial against Maclean's continues there, with judgement awaited. The Alberta HRC continues to try Ezra Levant and his Western Standard magazine (now defunct in print) -- in proceedings that have gone on for more than two years. The Canadian HRC has taken 16 months in preliminary consideration of the case a gay activist brought against the small Toronto-based Catholic Insight magazine. Indeed: prolonged and arbitrary delays appear to be part of the method by which the HRCs bleed their respondents dry with legal and other expenses. [bold added]

On considering an image of this functionary such as the one above, I recall at once Ayn Rand's weariness at the smallness of the enemy and the danger of such small people having government force at their disposal. This person is a complete zero and all the power in the world will never change that -- but she can, with that power, obliterate real value and destroy real lives. This is all that matters to someone like Barbara Hall, but I digress....

In case you didn't notice from the above, Warren spells out the imminent danger to freedom of speech these commission pose in Canada:

[Y]ou can be tried for the same imaginary "hate crimes" in any or all federal and provincial jurisdictions, simultaneously or sequentially. A single complaint by any reader anywhere is enough to launch a secret inquiry. The target has no right to confront his accuser, and will not at first even be told who he or she is.

Truth is no defence, the absence of harm is no defence, there are no rules of evidence -- due process is entirely subverted. The inquisitors of these kangaroo courts may ultimately reach any "judgement" they please, after months or years of playing cat-and-mouse with their selected victim.

...

All of the complainant's expenses are paid by the taxpayer, as well as all of the overheads and expenses of the jet-setting "human rights" bureaucrats, who do all the prosecutorial work, as well as providing both judge and jury.

Worst of all, the Canadian people are still, according to Warren, nearly oblivious to the danger! There is still time to fix things as the aftermath of all the recent adverse publicity has demonstrated, but the HRCs seem to be backing down in the wake of that publicity merely so that, "The CHRC can retrench, and return to its bread-and-butter business of destroying little people who command no publicity -- biding their time until circumstances are propitious to 'extend their mandate' again." Later, he adds that, "The system is, in principle, indistinguishable from that in place during the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China."

I find it distressing how poorly-appreciated freedom of speech seems to be these days in the West, but unsurprising at the same time. Pragmatism has taught many, over generations, that the abstract principles freedom of speech permits us to communicate aren't really that important, and other modern philosophies have influenced the culture to regard feelings -- such as being offended -- as having cognitive status and moral import.

The situation is not hopeless, but it cannot remain so for long with such a system in place. Anglosphere beware: Free speech may be a time-honored tradition, but it will not remain so without a spirited, principled defense.

-- CAV

This post was composed in advance and scheduled for publication at 5:00 A.M. on July 1, 2008.

Updates

Today: Corrected a typo.