August 31, 2008
Change and Hot Dogs
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogI must confess something. For about a month I have thought McCain should pick Palin as his running mate. I have thought so since I first saw her picture. She was an attractive young woman. Sexy. Without knowing a thing about her, I thought McCain would have the best chance of winning with Palin at his side.
When McCain stunned me and the world by doing what I thought he should do, I got serious and looked at what the woman actually stands for. The more I learn about her, the less I like her. But why did I want her on the ticket in the first place? Because she is different.
She is not your average boring politician. You see, in the welfare state, a politician learns to operate in a way calculated to anger as few people as possible. This is what all those politicians with that vaunted "experience" do. They become gray middle-of-the-roaders. It is how one gains experience in a welfare state.
Imagine a politician who believed what I believe -- imagine a bona fide radical for capitalism. Someone who wanted to roll back state intervention in the economy past the antitrust laws. Someone who wanted to dismantle the welfare state, including social security. We're talking about an individual rights absolutist.
How long would that politician survive in today's America? Could he win any elections? Could he get any experience? Or would he, thinking politics is the art of the possible, begin trimming his positions and compromising? Before you know it he would end up kind of like Newt Gingrich or Phil Gramm. He might be on the right side of the spectrum, but he would no longer be sneered at as an "extremist" by the likes of Hugh Hewitt.
People are sick of politics as usual. Obama is right that people want change. That is the lesson of this election now. Three of the candidates are different: McCain is a maverick who sticks his thumb in his party's eye; Obama is black; Palin is a woman. Biden is politics as usual, whom it seems that Obama had to go with to allay fears that Obama was too unusual.
The problem is that in looking for the new, people are not looking for new ideas, but new identities. What happens when these new people give us politics as usual?
We need politicians who will be ideological outsiders. People who will risk having Republican propagandists like Hewitt denounce them as extremists.
#
I keep thinking of this passage from my idol, Ludwig von Mises:
If any of the socialist chiefs had tried to earn his living by selling hot dogs, he would have learned something about he sovereignty of the customers. But they were professional revolutionaries and their only job was to kindle civil war. Lenin's ideal was to build a nation's production effort according to the model of the post office, an outfit that does not depend on the consumers, because its deficits are covered by compulsory collection of taxes. "The whole of society," he said, was to "become one office and one factory."
If only Lenin had sold hot dogs. What a great thought.
McCain, Obama and Biden have never sold a single goddamn hot dog among the three of them. They are creatures of the state. They don't understand how entrepreneurs must work their rears off to please people -- to make people's lives better -- and earn a profit. They don't understand that the man who makes a profit is the one who truly serves people.
Worse, Obama and McCain think selling hot dogs is morally inferior. If you sell hot dogs, you are merely pursuing your ignoble self-interest. But if they take the money you make selling hot dogs and redistribute it to the poor, then they are moral.
Sarah Palin has sold a few hot dogs in her time. By that I mean that she has worked in the private sector. She did not start out intending work for the state. To me that makes her superior to the little men who preen about a lifetime of "service." The only thing they serve is their power-lust.
UPDATE: George Reisman compares Palin's "windfall taxes" scheme to Obama's.
Obama and Palin are both obviously ignorant of economics. John McCain, who picked Palin to be his running mate, has admitted his own lack of knowledge of the subject. Knowing little or nothing of the subject himself, he could not be expected to realize that Palin knew nothing of the subject either. An examination of the record of Obama’s running mate, Senator Joseph Biden, would probably turn up a more extensive record of comparable ignorance of economics, given his greater number of years in public life as a leading spokesman for the Democratic Party.
More Thoughts On Sarah Palin
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogI have my reservations about Sarah Palin. We still must find out about her judgment, character and capabilities. But I have been appalled over the last 24 hours at the left's attempt to assassinate her character.
The left is trying to do to her what they did to Dan Quayle in 1988. There was a media frenzy when Bush the elder picked him to be his Vice-President. The media and the Democrats defined Quayle unfairly as an airhead. The left has a long history of attacking Republicans as stupid: Reagan, Ford, Eisenhower, and I believe even Wilkie and Coolidge were attacked thus.
Quayle never recovered from that initial onslaught. He never was able to redefine himself. To this day he is radioactive in politics.
Now they're trying to paint Palin as a second Quayle. I don't think it will work because the world is different today. 1988 was in the last days of MSM dominance.
Also, Palin is NOT Quayle temperamentally; her basketball nickname, Sarah Barracuda, bespeaks a scrappy character, a fighter. She holds a gun with authority -- something urbane leftists, from Obama to Dukakis to Adlai Stevenson could not do. If you want an historical comparison for Palin, don't look at Quayle, look at Theodore Roosevelt.
William Kristol (who incidentally was Quayle's chief of staff) gets it right: the left is scared to death of Palin. So the big push is on now to destroy her character.
Let's hope she spells potato right.
#
I don't find the arguments about experience persuasive -- not in any case, not for McCain and Biden and not against Obama and Palin.
Taking experience alone as a qualification, then the most qualified man to be President is Jimmy Carter. He did it before, and having served only one term he is eligible to be reelected. When you talk about 3am telephone calls, he's been there. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the hostage takeover in Tehran must have been two telephone calls from hell.
Would you want Jimmy Carter to be President?
Ideology is of supreme importance. Experience is a minor factor compared to what a man believes.
Barack Obama is ideologically a lot like Jimmy Carter. Neither has a good understanding of America's enemies in this dangerous world. Obama, you could say, is Carter without the experience.
Which of the two inexperienced candidates, Obama or Palin, would you rather have answering that 3am telephone call announcing China's invasion of Taiwan? A lifelong member of the NRA or a man who holds collectivism as his ideal? A woman who once worked as a commercial fisherman or a man who once worked as a community organizer (a job that is by its nature altruist-collectivist-statist)?
Ideas get little discussion in American politics, and that is a shame. For whatever reason, American politics is occupied with nonessential concretes, from kissing babies to eating greasy food at state fairs. A candidate's experience is the facts of his resume, and today's anti-conceptual minds can parse these empirical facts all day without having to consider ideas and principles. For the most part it's a waste of time.
As I noted, I have reservations about Palin, specifically her mysticism. I want to find out more about how she thinks. But however bad she might be, I have a hard time believing she could deal with the invasion of Taiwan worse than Obama or even the supremely experienced Jimmy Carter. Remember, Obama's initial reaction to Russia's invasion of Georgia was mild and carried no moral condemnation of Russia. It took McCain's strong response to bring the Obama campaign around the next day to issuing something a little firmer than a wet tissue.
Change We Should Run From
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogThe New Hampshire Union Leader half-way nails it in a brief editorial ("Statism on Parade: The Dems in Denver") regarding the Democratic convention:
When Democrats today say they want to "take America back," they mean it. They want to take this country back to the 1970s, when government was thought to be the answer to every problem and weak foreign policy was thought to make us safer.While it was refreshing to see that some members of the press weren't at the Democratic Convention cheering for Barack Obama, I would not be surprised to see this paper endorsing the other statist in this campaign, John McCain. That is a shame, because McCain is even more dangerous than Obama: Obama's true nature as an empty suit will quickly become apparent if he is elected, and the only way, it seems, to get Republicans to oppose a statist agenda is when they have to stop the Democrats from enacting it before they do. If McCain wins, we'll wish all we had was Bush in the White House.
That is not change we can believe in. It is change we should run from.
Yes, we need to run from this kind of change. Too bad the Republicans have been helping build the fences to block our escape.
I'm pondering whether to register my dissatisfaction with the "choice" at the top of the ticket by writing myself in. I don't want the office and I'd probably be impeached in short order for refusing to enact some form of statist legislation. These two things alone make me more qualified than Obama or McCain -- and in today's cultural context, a safe bet to lose.
Gallows humor aside (HT: Diana Hsieh), the ultimate answer to today's political disaster is cultural change -- to make people once again more generally aware of the nature of freedom and the proper purpose of government. Along those lines, I remind my readers that there is a way, now, to help reverse our altruist-collectivist cultural trends: Consider ordering and distributing, or even just donating to The Undercurrent, which is once again set to hit campuses nationwide.
Our colleges will remain full of Obamatons (and worse) -- and any opponents they have will remain intellectually disarmed -- until and unless students are presented with a rational alternative in political philosophy.
-- CAV
Sarah Palin
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogMy first impression of Sarah Palin, McCain's VP pick, is that she is a sharp, confident woman. On a sense of life level, she looks focused on reality, and that is entirely admirable. She is likable.
She is not an intellectual. This promises that she will be, ultimately, ineffectual. We will get from her just more of the same. Yes, she speaks about reform and cleaning up government, but without ideology, it can't be done. Without a conscious, explicit understanding of the ideal of laissez-faire capitalism, one cannot fight for it. In the end, government will continue to grow under McCain-Palin.
George W. Bush is, like Palin, a nonintellectual -- he has even sneered at all that book larnin'. His Christian altruism led him to be a big government Republican. One question we need to find out is just how serious a Christian she is (I'm assuming she is Christian). The more religious she is, the worse she will turn out to be. As an athlete, sportswoman and political activist, she seems to be more focused on this world than any supernatural realm; let's hope so, anyway.
Since her boss, John McCain is a committed "national greatness" Republican and a thorough statist, Palin will have to go along with his vision. She will make little difference in the next four years.
I don't think she will get any Hillary voters just because she is a woman. They're smarter than that. Hardcore Democrats won't vote for a Republican. This morning I spoke to a staunch Hillary supporter, a woman, about McCain's choice and she had nothing but contempt for Palin. All that blather about breaking glass ceilings and "the first woman vice-president" is meaningless in the end. Palin is a Republican, and that's all that matters to the Democrat base.
2012: Clinton vs. Palin? It certainly could happen.
UPDATE: From Chuck in the comments:
According to Wikipedia, Palin supported teaching creationism is public schools in Alaska. She led her high school basketball team in prayers before every game. She is pro-life. She's an environmentalist, who wants to legislate against industries that contribute to "global warming."
She is supposedly in favor of drilling for oil in ANWR, but as she is an environmentalist, I expect she will inevitably cave in to environmentalists on that issue, as well.
Disappointing.
On another note, I can't believe the Obama campaign's first reaction to the Palin pick was to sneer at her for growing up in a small town. Do they want to alienate John Mellencamp, too? The entire Obama campaign is deep, deep in the liberal cocoon. Not a good sign for them.
Retire Social Security
By Alex Epstein from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogRetire Social Security
Social Security Is Morally Bankrupt
By Alex Epstein
August 14 marks Social Security's 73rd birthday--placing it eight years past standard retirement age. But, despite the program's $10-trillion-plus dollar shortfall, no politician dares to suggest that this disastrous program be phased out and retired; all agree on one absolute: Social Security must be saved. While the program may have financial problems, virtually everyone believes that some form of mandatory government-run retirement program is morally necessary.
But is it?
Social Security is commonly portrayed as benefiting most, if not all, Americans by providing them "risk-free" financial security in old age.
This is a fraud.
Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income--approximately 12 percent--for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries--with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.
Under Social Security, every aspect of the government's "promise" to provide financial security is at the mercy of political whim. The government can change how much of an individual's money it takes--it has increased the payroll tax 17 times since 1935. The government can spend his money on anything it wants--observe the long-time practice of spending any annual Social Security surplus on other entitlement programs. The government can change when (and therefore if) it chooses to pay him benefits and how much they consist of--witness the current proposals to raise the age cutoff or lower future benefits. Under Social Security, whether an individual gets twice as much from others as was taken from him, or half as much, or nothing at all, is entirely at the discretion of politicians. He cannot count on Social Security for anything--except a massive drain on his income.
If Social Security did not exist--if the individual were free to use that 12 percent of his income as he chose--his ability to better his future would be incomparably greater. He could save for his retirement with a diversified, long-term, productive investment in stocks or bonds. Or he could reasonably choose not to devote all 12 percent to retirement. He might plan to work far past the age of 65. He might plan to live more comfortably when he is young and more modestly in old age. He might choose to invest in his own productivity through additional education or starting a business.
How much, when, and in what form one should provide for retirement is highly individual--and is properly left to the individual's free judgment and action. Social Security deprives the young of this freedom, and thus makes them less able to plan for the future, less able to provide for their retirement, less able to buy homes, less able to enjoy their most vital years, less able to invest in themselves. And yet Social Security's advocates continue to push it as moral. Why?
The answer lies in the program's ideal of "universal coverage"--the idea that, as a New York Times editorial preached, "all old people must have the dignity of financial security"--regardless of how irresponsibly they have acted. On this premise, since some would not save adequately on their own, everyone must be forced into some sort of "guaranteed" collective plan--no matter how irrational. Observe that Social Security's wholesale harm to those who would use their income responsibly is justified in the name of those who would not. The rational and responsible are shackled and throttled for the sake of the irrational and irresponsible.
Those who wish to devote their wealth to saving the irresponsible from the consequences of their own actions should be free to do so through private charity, but to loot the savings of untold millions of innocent, responsible, hard-working young people in the name of such a goal is a monstrous injustice.
Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it--how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures.
Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on business issues. The Center promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrandcenter.org.
RSS
Let's Stop Making Disasters More Disastrous
By Thomas Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogLet's Stop Making Disasters More Disastrous
Three years after Hurricane Katrina, it's time to rethink government programs that lure people into harm's way.
By Thomas A. Bowden
It's the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the savage storm that inundated the Mississippi Delta in late August 2005, leaving more than 1,800 people dead and causing widespread property damage.
Disasters can sometimes shock a nation into questioning entrenched practices. But Hurricane Katrina, one of the worst natural disasters ever to befall
Indeed, President Bush in a recent speech boasted of having sunk $126 billion of taxpayers' money into rebuilding programs, mostly to restore and repopulate
The Katrina tragedy should have called into question the so-called safety net composed of government policies that actually encourage people to embrace risks they would otherwise shun--to build in defiance of historically obvious dangers, secure in the knowledge that innocent others will be forced to share the costs when the worst happens.
Without blaming the victims for having followed their own government's lead, it is time to question whether those policies should continue.
The first strands of today's safety net were spun in the nineteenth century, as the Army Corps of Engineers shouldered the burden of constructing and maintaining levees and other flood controls along the
Throughout the twentieth century, new strands were woven into the safety net, first in the form of loans to disaster victims, then by direct grants, infrastructure repairs, loan guarantees, job training, subsidized investments, health care, debris removal, and a host of similar rehabilitative measures.
In 1968, the National Flood Insurance Program began supplying subsidized coverage for structures and their contents in flood-prone areas. Similar state-subsidized insurance programs arose for hurricanes in
At each juncture, more aid was funneled to disaster victims without serious challenge to the wisdom of encouraging people to occupy vulnerable locations.
In response to
By gradual steps, this disaster safety net became part of the legal landscape, taken for granted by private investors and owners deciding to undertake new projects or rebuild storm-damaged areas. Relief programs--by minimizing, disguising, and shifting the real risks of defying natural hazards--became an active force distorting private decision-making and inviting even worse future tragedies.
Thus if a pre-Katrina Mississippian asked himself, "Should I build my house 10 feet above sea level, a quarter-mile from the Gulf Coast?" the answer came back: "Sure, why not? The government will look after me if disaster strikes."
This entitlement mentality ensured that each new tragedy would generate fresh demands to expand the safety net. In Katrina's aftermath, those demands centered on State Farm, the insurance giant that dared to deny certain claims under homeowners policies that covered wind damage but expressly excluded floods.
Last year, a jury inflamed by adverse public opinion awarded $1 million in punitive damages against State Farm for having stood on its contract rights in a dispute involving a single house. That case was reversed on appeal, but the victory was cold comfort for State Farm, which in the meantime elected prudently to calm the litigation storm by paying tens of millions of dollars to settle claims for unproven wind damage. Voila! The safety net had a fresh new strand, woven at the insurance company's expense.
Disgusted, State Farm announced last year that it would cease writing new homeowners policies in
As more private insurers withdraw from high-hazard areas--or raise their rates to reflect the staggering legal and public relations costs of offering disaster insurance--a predictable lament arises: the free market has failed, and government must fill the vacuum so that the statist safety net remains strong. Thus it surprises no one to hear Florida Gov. Charlie Crist challenging the presidential candidates to push for a federal catastrophic fund that would keep insurance premiums artificially low in disaster-prone areas across the country.
But the solution is not more of the market distortions and perverse incentives that have lured so many people into harm's way. The solution is to replace the prevailing entitlement mentality with a free market in disaster prevention, insurance, and recovery.
In a free market--without tax-paid levees, government disaster relief, or subsidized insurance--anyone who contemplates building or buying property in a high-hazard area will need to face hard facts about the local history of natural disasters, the efficacy and cost of preventive measures, and the availability of insurance.
For example, the high price--or total unavailability--of private insurance will resound like a clanging alarm bell, signaling the market's objective view that a particular building plan is abnormally risky compared to less dangerous locales.
With their own lives and wealth at stake, people will have every incentive to evaluate risks objectively. And if hardy souls still choose to occupy and fortify
Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on legal issues. Mr. Bowden is a former lawyer and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore,
RSS
Islamic Censorship by Default
By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogIslamic Censorship by Default
August 13, 2008
"Random House's decision is the tragic result of
"In 1989, when Ayatollah Khomeini called for the execution of Salman Rushdie and Islamists firebombed American bookstores, the
"If a publisher faces the prospect of violent reprisals, and knows that the
"The American government exists to protect our rights, including our right to free speech. By defaulting on its responsibility, it has allowed theocratic thugs to dictate what Americans can say, write, and publish. It needs to send a message that it will no longer tolerate any threat against the right of Americans to speak freely about any subject, including Islam.
"How much longer will our government allow Islamic radicals to tell us what we can say?
Christian fundamentalists put freaks on parade
By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlogChristians and other mystics sometimes argue that religion makes people moral. I disagree: morality is a practical science which can only be understood by rational consideration, not emotionalism (the epistemological method of faith). To the extent that religious dogmas and religious people preach and act morally, they derive their principles using the same rational methods and the same evidence that is available to everyone. Since rational moral claims need no mystical basis, it is only the irrational and immoral actions which require religious justification. To the extent that religious beliefs as such influence people’s actions, they can only influence them to do evil – sometimes unspeakable and sometimes trivial, but still evil.
For the most part, modern Western religions, such as those in the United States, merely consist of mindless time-wasting rituals. They are evil in the sense of distracting people from more productive activities, especially from more productive means of finding moral guidance. Nevertheless, for the most part, and despite their religion, most Americans are good and productive people, who pay lip-service to a dogma highly diluted by Western philosophy and modern science.
The prime candidate for the moral monopoly of religion in America is the domain of life and death. This is where the real evil of religious influence becomes evident. One particularly despicable influence of religion was out on display when John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential candidate. One of Governor’s Palin’s qualifications for the presidential ticket is that she gave birth to a baby with Down’s syndrome in April.
The fact that Palin’s baby has Down’s syndrome is certainly tragic. Down’s not only severely impacts the health and life-expectancy of the child, is also a tremendous burden on their caretakers. (Aside from my personal observation, my girlfriend has worked closely with Down’s parents and their children.) As an unpredictable genetic disorder however, the symptom cannot be blamed on anyone. Except for this: since January 2007, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has recommended Down’s screening for all pregnant women, and so Governor Palin knew that her fetus had Down’s, and decided to continue her pregnancy anyway. Furthermore, she has turned her decision into political leverage in the upcoming election as proof of her moral virtuousness:
“How refreshing that now we have a woman who reflects the values of mainstream American women,” said Janice Shaw Crouse of the conservative group Concerned Women for America.
Whereas previously, a Down’s child could be born without the prior knowledge of the mother, going forward, a parent with a Down’s child will likely (at least in the developed world) have made a conscious choice to have that child. The child represents a sacrifice made by their parents for their faith. As the recommendations of ACOG are implemented nationwide, Down’s children (and eventually those with other genetic disorders) will increasingly become symbols of faith – a freak show meant to communicate the “family values” of their parents. They will be a symbol of religious reverence in the same way as the scarred backs of Catholics who flagellate themselves, or Buddhist monks who set themselves on fire, or Sunni Muslims who mutilate their girl’s genitals or Shiites who bloody their and their children’s heads with swords.
It is important to recognize that genuine moral virtues – such as integrity, honesty, and productivity are not useful as evidence of religious virtue. To the extent that their practical benefit is visible to everyone, they do not represent the special domain of religion. To demonstrate religious virtue, it is necessary to sacrifice authentic moral values in favor of “religious” values. The particular object of the sacrifice is not important – there is nothing particularly “biblical” about being prolife (the Christian bible just as easily supports the opposite position.) If Christian fundamentalists decided that cutting of one’s hand sufficed as proof of moral virtue, they would still be guilty of evil, but not much more so than the numerous other ways that people of all kinds find to be self-destructive. What is really vicious about fundamentalists in America is that the prey on the most vulnerable –poor pregnant young girls and women, those dying from painful terminal illnesses, the loved ones of brain-dead patients, — and children afflicted with terrible genetic illnesses. One can at least grasp the moral indifference with which a fundamentalist can force a single young mother to abandon her goals and dreams and condemn her and her child to poverty. But what can we say about a parent that chooses a life of suffering upon their child? If we are morally outraged by child rapists, how should we judge a parent who chooses a lifetime of suffering on their own child?
August 29, 2008
Morally Castrated Cowards
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogBryan nails the insignificance of the scandal about the too-young Chinese gymnasts. (I'm going to quote the whole post since a cut-and-paste wouldn't do it justice.)
The IOC should heed the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a morally castrated coward, than to launch a ridiculous sham investigation of the age of some Chinese gymnasts and remove all doubt." (That's from memory, but I'm pretty sure those were his exact words.)Oh, and let's add one more item to the long list of China's evils, to which supposedly civilized nations routinely turn a blind eye: Taiwan.
Look: the Chinese government has spent a decade cheerfully spitting in the IOC's face, flouting every last promise they made in order to get us all to ignore 800-pound elephants like Tiananmen Square, Tibet, the Falun Gong, and the slave labor camps, and give them the games. Human rights? Sorry. Free speech for Chinese citizens? Please—they've extended their censorship so effectively that even foreigners and visiting athletes are now subject to it. China has proven that they'll make whatever empty promises they have to in order to pry what they want out of a clueless and docile IOC, which has not protested. And now the IOC wants to demonstrate its moral authority and commitment to fair play ... by humbly requesting documents verifying the age of some gymnasts?
Of course they're cheating! Hell, they even Milli Vanillied the opening ceremonies! Now it's true that as a layman I don't have all the documentary evidence, but China has definitely crossed enough lines that there's absolutely no reason to extend them the benefit of the doubt, nor the presumption of innocence (and when it comes down to common sense versus a Chinese government-issued passport, I'll trust my lying eyes, thank you). And that's why it's a kind of treason for the IOC to get exercised over trivia like this, while piously ignoring China's systematic violation of the standards of decency and fair play.
The IOC knows who they're dealing with, and has known for years, and has taught China to rely faithfully on their "turn a blind eye" policy. There has never been even a token effort to hold them accountable for their promises. That's what makes this gymnastics business a red herring, designed only to distract people from the utter spinelessness of the IOC (Usain Bolt has also been victimized by this cowardly behavior). So let's do a thought experiment, and ask ourselves what might happen if the IOC gets smoking-gun evidence that proves beyond a doubt that China forged those little girls' passports. After prostrating themselves before demonstrably empty promises for all these years, does anybody imagine that they'll suddenly find what it takes to stand up to China, in any way other than the most meaningless and trivial?
If hard evidence turns up, and that's assuming that the IOC doesn't already have it and hasn't already destroyed it, then I think we'll see a sort of sacrificial lamb scenario: at most, China will permit one or two little girls to be stripped of their medals, and the IOC will pronounce itself satisfied, and praise China for its openness, and the story will fade away into the general tarnish that's descended onto the popular ideal of the Olympics as a fair, un-politicized, and sportsmanlike enterprise. Frankly the whole thing makes me sick.
Protect People and Livestock, Not Feral Dogs
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogOn Wednesday, I received the following e-mail from Mary Fries, the owner of Isle Farms with her husband Rod. I own a cowshare and a half with them, so that I can drink a gallon and a half of their clean, safe, and delicious raw milk each week.
I decided to post it here, with permission, because it highlights the very real evil of blind sympathy for wild animals fostered by animal rights activists. Plus, given how much I love my raw milk, I'd be delighted if others would write a supportive e-mail to the County Commissioner.
Here's the letter from Mary:
Dear Shareholders,Here's the letter that I wrote to the County Commissioner:
I realized last night that this issue pertains as much to you as it does me, so I wanted to include you and ask for your help.
Yesterday, I was out on the land, checking in on a new calf that was born this weekend. As I was standing in front of the herd, they all started running-straight towards me!-and it was all I could do to spin around one, step, spin again, and end up leaning up again the barb-wired fence. Right behind the cows, at full run, were a pack of wild dogs. One was a pit bull-who headed straight for me. I grabbed an old fence post that was by my feet, and that detoured him from coming closer. He and the other dogs left without further prodding.
This is a good summary of what the news was talking about a few weeks ago, about the dogs here in Ellicott. We personally have been fighting this problem from the get-go. The law regarding wild dogs is this -- you can only shoot them if they are in the midst of attacking your livestock. Many times Rod has gone out there with the shotgun, while the dogs were in the midst of chasing the cows, but by the time he gets in range, the dogs see him coming, and run off.
I phoned Amy Lathen (County Commissioner) almost immediately yesterday. She headed up the plan to finally get these dogs under control, after years of complaints from residents. When I explained what happened, she said she had a contract ready to go with the USDA for the trapping, but they were dragging their feet. Apparently, after the news ran the segment, they got so many emails from not just Colorado Springs residents, but throughout the country, and all the way from INDIA!!, with people berating their efforts as inhumane.
I'm all for animals, but the people emailing do not have any idea of what the farmers and ranchers face when these things happen. For our farm, and many others in the area, this is part of our livelihood. These dogs are WILD, and the situations that are arising, are downright dangerous for both livestock and humans. And humane -- what about the cows? They stress from being chased, and having to fight them off!
I'm asking that all of you take a second and email Amy, let her know that you are behind her effort to help our community keep ourselves and our livestock safe. You can say anything -- a short "we are behind you in your efforts" to "I have ownership in livestock in Ellicott, and support you in helping keep them safe". Whatever you can do, I think she was pretty beat up over this whole thing.
Although -- her final words to me were "That's it. We are going to do this." Here is her email -- AmyLathen@elpasoco.com
Huge thanks to you all, from me AND the cows :o)
One more thing -- after the cows stampeded past me yesterday, they ran in a U shape, and I was trying to figure out why they didn't run VERY far away. Then I happened to notice, surrounded by 18 pairs of hooves, a little head popping up out of the grass -- Baby Dolla :o) They weren't going anywhere with that baby unprotected... what good cows :o)
Mary
Dear Ms Lathen,Please feel free to write your own letter of support to the County Commissioner (AmyLathen@elpasoco.com). She needs some moral support for her totally just decision to prioritize humans and livestock over dangerous feral dogs. Basically, it's a good opportunity for a wee bit of activism against the animal rights activists. And it could make a great deal of difference to the safety and welfare of the people and livestock terrorized by these dogs.
I'm a resident of Douglas County, but I have livestock in Ellicott. (I have shares in Mary and Rod Fries' herd.)
I'm very concerned to hear of the wild dogs that have been periodically terrorizing their farm, putting people and livestock at risk. So I wish to express my wholehearted support for the county doing whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat posed by these wild dogs.
Human lives and property should not be at the mercy of dangerous feral dogs due to misplaced public sympathy for them. Human beings and human concerns should come first!
Thank you for your efforts to take care of the problem.
(Please feel free to forward this letter to whomever you please, if that would be helpful to you.)
-- DMH
Bush's Altruist Doctrine
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogWriting at The American Interest, John Lewis Gaddis suggests that a "return to our roots is called for" as a means of sustaining our "national greatness". Specifically, he starts off by asking the related questions of what constitutes a presidential doctrine, and whether President Bush can be said to have a doctrine.
Gaddis concludes that Bush "may have proclaimed a doctrine for the 21st century comparable to the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and to the Truman Doctrine during the Cold War". That doctrine, if it was one, Bush stated succinctly in his Second Inaugural Address:
[I]t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.It is this policy Gaddis wishes to examine in his article. The examination is lengthy, interesting at times, frustrating at others, and ultimately unsatisfying.
Why?
Gaddis, a historian by profession, hints at the answer early on in his essay when commenting on the fact that President Bush reads quite a bit of history himself:
"Well, so Bush reads history", one might reasonably observe at this point. "Isn't it more important to find out how he uses it?" It is indeed, and I doubt that anybody will be in a position to answer that question definitively until the oral histories get recorded, the memoirs get written, and the archives open. But I can say this on the basis of direct observation: President Bush is interested -- as no other occupant of the White House has been for quite a long time -- in how the past can provide guidance for the future.The question of how a leader uses history is vitally important, but I beg to differ that one need wait -- setting aside the question, "For how long?" -- for how events will play themselves out to answer that question.
Two aspects of how a leader might use his knowledge of history leap to my mind as being important here. First, there is the ethical matter of what said leader intends to do with his power, for which we already have a mountain of evidence against Bush. The interested reader may follow the link to learn why I regard Bush as a failure in his proper role as a protector of individual rights due to his altruist ethics and collectivist politics.
Second, there is the interpretive matter of what a leader will learn from the historical data he considers. Both will be influenced by the philosophical ideas -- implicit and explicit -- and psycho-epistemology of the leader. In Bush's case, I suspect that both are sent off course by his defective compass of compassionate conservatism. It is his interpretation of history I will examine more closely here. It is further hampered by how modern historians approach American history.
In a note of disclosure after his essay, Gaddis notes that he has served Bush at least once in an advisory role.
I suggested including the idea of ending tyranny in a session with the President’s speechwriters on January 10, 2005. Correlations, however, are not causes.Fair enough. Let's assume Gaddis did not help Bush formulate his policy. But let's take Gaddis as a typical modern historian, as an example of how the historical record is being transmitted to Bush for his subsequent interpretation.
Gaddis examines the history of both the ideas of spreading "democracy" (a term he never defines and ends up misusing) and of ending tyranny, as well as some past American doctrines of foreign policy. Here is an example, from his look at the Monroe Doctrine:
The Monroe Doctrine reflected a long American tradition -- extending well back into the 18th century -- of associating liberty, prosperity and security with continental expansion. Its principal author, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, related that history to the crisis caused by the apparent intention of European monarchs -- Great Britain's excepted -- to reestablish their colonies in the Western Hemisphere after Napoleon's defeat. The course Adams set was that "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers." Its feasibility lay in the fact that the British tacitly agreed with that policy and were willing to use their navy to enforce it. The Monroe Doctrine was unilateral, as presidential doctrines must be. But it was based upon a realistic calculation of power within the international system, as all doctrines should be.A young America takes advantage of England's desire not to have strong rivals in Europe to keep from having powerful, hostile neighbors in close proximity. That was a master stroke, and it certainly prevented tyranny in the Americas from being established by European colonial powers, but Gaddis fixates on "ending tyranny" as the end purpose of the doctrine.
To him, a Doctrine, "[draws] on a long history, ... relate[s] that history to a current crisis, and in doing so ... set[s] a course the nation could feasibly navigate into the future." So far, so good, but later in his essay, it becomes clear that he confuses the immediate end of many doctrines (of opposing tyranny) with the goal of protecting the American people from foreign threats. Here is what he says as he critiques the Bush policy/doctrine: "So if ending tyranny is what you want to accomplish, promoting democracy in and of itself may not be enough. Something more seems to be required."
That America has a long tradition of opposing tyranny is clear from this essay, but why she does is strangely absent. Our Founding Fathers were not after "national greatness" when they rebelled against England, but the ability to live their lives freely in the pursuit of their own happiness. They understood that a proper government would protect their ability to do so and that part of that protection entailed it being strong enough to thwart invasion by foreign aggressors.
In the context of the original purpose of the founding of this nation, then, we see that national strength is certainly a desirable thing -- because it enables us to live our lives as free men. To the extent that our government is good (or "great"), then, it is serving its proper role. (And as for the call for America to "return to its roots", full protection of individual rights is the only thing it is proper to call for in a political context.)
Whether a nation is a "democracy" (or, more properly, generally respects individual rights) or is a tyranny is of secondary concern at most to our government. (And if we must topple a tyranny in some way to ensure our security, the benefits enjoyed by its former victims are a happy side-effect.) Tyrannies are natural enemies of freedom (and thus, of America). No wonder we have had, as a matter of self-preservation, to oppose them throughout our history!
So to claim that America has a "tradition" of opposing tyranny, while ignoring the roots of that tradition in the allied rational self-interests of her citizens is to make a gross interpretive error. It strips opposition to tyranny of its crucial context in political philosophy, and having done so, allows it to be subordinated to such altruistic ends as "national greatness", by which it should be apparent by now means something like "adherence to God's will" to a theocrat immersed in such an interpretation.
Our government exists, in the context of foreign policy, solely to protect us from harm by foreign powers. It certainly does not exist in order to force its own citizens to sacrifice their own lives and treasure to save others from tyranny.
If Gaddis is a typical modern historian, and I think he probably is, then his failure to consider the importance of philosophical ideas in shaping history is helping leaders like Bush evade (or get away with ignoring) crucial aspects of our history even as they go about misusing what they learn of our history for their own tyrannical ends.
A leader whose sole purpose is anything other than the protection of your individual rights is either a tyrant or is paving the way for one. True national greatness is not a goal to which the individual is subordinate, but the result of protecting all individual citizens.
-- CAV
Democrat Convention: Day 3
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogIn the last two days I have seen speeches by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden. The Clintons' speeches said what the Democrats wanted to hear -- and what they needed to hear if the Clintons were to have any future in the party. And both speeches were lies. The Clintons do not want Obama to win in November. They want Obama to lose so they can say, "I told you so," and Hillary can run for President in 2012.
If you have any doubt that the Clintons were lying -- like that's never happened before, right? -- remember that Bill said this yesterday:
“Suppose you’re a voter, and you’ve got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don’t think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?
“This has nothing to do with what’s going on now.”
Why did he bring it up if it has nothing to do with what's going on now? What the hell was talking about then? He was sending a signal of what he really believes. He was cynically telling the world that his speech supporting Obama was a task he had to perform, but don't put too much weight on his words -- wink, wink.
Although she smiled and applauded at the right times, Michelle Obama had a distrustful look in her eyes during the Clintons' speeches. There daggers lurked. And she is quite right to be wary, for the Clintons are NOT her friends.
Joe Biden's speech was heartfelt and passionate. Unlike the Clintons, he believed what he said.
Biden was incoherent. He talked about his Mother admonishing him to get up when he fell down. That's fine. That's self-reliance. Then he criticized Bush because our government is not helping people get up when they fall down. That's not self-reliance, but dependence on the government. If the government gets in the business of helping people when they fall down, then people will forget how to get up by themselves. They will learn to lie there and whine until their keepers come along and help them to their feet.
Biden said we are losing the American dream. Right -- we are. Why is that? Why was the American dream strong in the 19th century and now it is in trouble? Could it possibly be the growth of the welfare state? Could it be that replacing individualism with collectivism destroys the American dream? Could it be that everything the Democrats stand for destroys the American dream?
The Democrats are a party of ignorant altruists. At this late date, you have to be stupid to want more government control over the economy and to think it will work. There has been much stupidity on display for the last three days. I think deep down the more intelligent Democrats understand that socialism will not work, but they evade in order to keep the impracticality of socialism unclear and undefined. And then they have the environmentalists whispering to them that the less the economy works, the more moral it is. This is not an idea they can take to the American public yet, although Al Gore is almost there.
Only the image of American individuals sacrificing for the collective moves them. Their only desire is to have power over all that sacrificing. They don't understand the arguments of people like Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand that show how their morality does not work and is not good. That it is impractical, they don't ultimately care; they will follow their morality into the abyss of destruction and poverty, cheered on by the environmentalists. That their morality is actually immoral -- is a morality of death -- they evade. And that is their greatest sin.
Harry Reid Speaks
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogThere has been moonbattery at the Democrat Convention, although the MSM has wisely ignored it. Such nuttiness does not make the Democrat Party look good and is unlikely to persuade independents.
Senator Harry Reid went far left to find red meat for the Democrat base:
For the past eight years, the man in the Oval Office has tipped his hat over his eyes, kicked back his chair, and snoozed at his desk. Charged with protecting our national interests, he slept on duty while his vice president conspired with oil industry cronies. Tasked with cutting off funding to terrorists, he slept on duty while oil shortages worsened, oil prices soared, and dollars by the ton were delivered to terrorists’ banks in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. Faced with a new kind of war, this president and his vice president helped their friends the old-fashioned way: through war profiteering, tax cuts for billionaires, and in many cases out-and-out corruption.
There are honest answers to the problems we face, but they call for hard solutions and common sacrifices, the kind of sacrifices that this administration has only asked the American people to bear when it lined the pockets of the obscenely rich.
(At what income level does one become obscenely rich? Would John Kerry qualify? Jay Rockefeller? George Soros? Or is the term "obscenely rich," rather a name that socialist idiots call rich people they don't like?)
Does anyone seriously believe Harry Reid's cartoon version of the war in Iraq? That Bush and Cheney would send America's fine men and women in the military to die in Iraq just so they and their friends might get rich? Where is the evidence?
But notice what Reid thinks is the solution to the supposed problem of oil: sacrifice. Yes, sacrifice is the Democrat answer to every problem. He praises Jimmy Carter for getting it right.
President Carter warned us about it in the 1970s when he proposed real solutions—conservation, fuel efficiency, and alternative fuels—to what he correctly named the “moral equivalent of war.” His proposals were ridiculed by Republicans who forgot that both Presidents Nixon and Ford had joined him in calling for America’s energy independence.
To Carter and Reid the solution is that Americans must do with less, with their collective sacrifice directed and coordinated by our wise masters in Washington, D.C. -- people like, oh, Jimmy Carter and Harry Reid.
The real solution is laissez-faire capitalism. Get the government out of energy production. Eliminate all impediments erected by the state and let the market work. Prices would plummet to all-time lows and gas would flow.
But we can't have that. Americans would be more productive and richer -- an environmental disaster! Worse, they would be independent and happy, living their lives without direction from our benevolent masters in Washington, D.C.
And where would that leave people like Harry Reid and Jimmy Carter? They would no longer be important, would they?
Read Reid's speech, and then consider: he is one of the most powerful men in America.
Yes, it is frightening.
It Can Happen Here
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogSo this is how fascism came to America.
It came in the form of a young, idealistic politician. A handsome fellow and a brilliant orator, he is a man set on fire by the ideals of altruism, collectivism and statism and who has the ability to pass the fire in his soul on to others. Unlike other politicians -- notably Bill Clinton -- who signal their cynicism, Barack Obama absolutely, without any doubt, believes in his purpose. He is a politician and something more -- a missionary, a prophet, a Moses ready to lead us to the promised land. He is a man imbued with moral certainty.
He is a somewhat odd man, one who is hard to define and pin down. He has described himself at times as a "rorshack test" and a "blank screen." He has been called a flake:
Barack Obama is a flake, and the American people have begun to see it. The chief characteristic of a flake is that he makes choices that are impossible to either understand or explain. These are not the errors of the poor dope who can't grasp the essentials of a situation, or the neurotic who ruins things out of compulsion, or the man suffering chronic bad luck.
The flake has a genius for discovering solutions at perfect right angles to the ordinary world. It's as if he's the product of a totally different evolutionary chain, in a universe where the laws are slightly but distinctly at variance to ours. When given a choice between left and right, the flake goes up -- if not through the 8th dimension. And although there's plenty of rationalization, there's never a logical reason for any of it. After awhile, people stop asking.
...
Back at school, Obama got himself named editor of the Harvard Law Review. This is a signal achievement, no question about it. The kind of thing that would be mentioned about a person for the rest of his life, as has been the case with Obama. But then... he writes nothing for the journal.
Now, let's get this straight: here we have one of the leading university law journals in the country, one widely cited and read. Entire careers in legal analysis and scholarship have been founded on appearances in the Review, including some that have led to the highest courts in the country. Yet here's an individual who, as editor, could easily place his own work in the journal -- standard practice, nothing at all wrong with it. But he fails to do so. And the explanation? There's none that I've heard. We can go even farther than that, to say that there is no explanation that makes the least rational sense.
We follow Obama down to Springfield, where as a state legislator, he voted "present" over 120 times. What this means, as far as I've been able to discover, is that he voted "present" nearly as much as he voted "yes" or "no".
...
We turn eagerly to learn what his term in the U.S. Senate will reveal, only to be disappointed. But it's not surprising, really. After all, he was only there for 143 days.
Or he is like Woody Allen's Zelig, a cipher who fits in and reflects any reality about him. If he is a fascist, it is because his party is fascist, our ideals are fascist, the spirit of our time is fascist.
Fascism is the form of socialism in which the means of production are nominally left in the hands of private ownership, whereas the ends of production are dictated by the state. In America the dictation is called "regulation." By regulating business politicians are able to achieve their statist ends while maintaining a pretense that America is still a free country. When their intervention causes a crisis, politicians blame the crisis on greedy businessmen and use it to justify further intervention in the economy.
Every assumption underlying the economic proposals in Barack Obama's acceptance speech tonight is fascist. He lacks any glimmer of understanding of freedom and assumes the state has the right to dictate any terms to business.
For example, Obama criticizes McCain because, "he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars." By what right does the state tell automakers what their fuel efficiency must be? Don't businessmen have property rights? Don't our politicians understand that a free country does not violate rights, even if it means having inefficient fuel standards? These questions are never asked in contemporary, fascist America.
Obama's ignorance of economics is so complete, so unquestioned and so impenetrable that this man has no understanding that his ideals will not work and will destroy freedom in America.
Fascism did not come to America the way it does in Hollywood. It was not brought by an evil mastermind. It was not brought by a greedy white industrialist intent on abusing the common man.
Fascism was brought to America by a Peter Keating, a social metaphysician who earnestly believes the bromides of our culture and lives by the ideals of altruism, collectivism and statism because they are all he has heard. He is a man who simply thinks he is giving America what it wants.
But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.
Obama's speech is titled "The American Promise." It is about America's ideal. And what exactly is this ideal?
...that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.
No, it is not the promise of the Declaration of Independence, the "pursuit of happiness" -- that would be a selfish, individualist promise. To Obama the American promise is collectivism: our destiny is inextricably linked and our dreams can be one. This is the promised end of a President Obama's change. Americans will stop being selfish and will sacrifice to the collective.
It won't be easy, but Michelle Obama has already warned us of that. "Barack Obama," she said, "will require you to work." Nobody gets out of this deal. We're all in this together.
All my life I have wondered if America really could sink into the abyss of dictatorship as Europe did in the mid-20th century. Intellectually I have know it could happen as we have lost freedom after freedom to "regulation." Tonight in Obama's acceptance speech fascism in America was made concretely real as it never was before. Now I am convinced it can happen here.
Random Thoughts on the Democrat Convention
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogDid the networks censor what delegates they showed on camera? I never saw any "San Francisco Democrats" or leftist nutjobs or gays or lesbians.
For that matter, I saw no silly hats festooned with buttons. Gotta have the silly hats and the balloons at the end -- and we got neither.
Someday the older Obama daughter will be a stone cold HEARTBREAKER.
I think Obama had such a serious look on his face in his acceptance speech as a response to McCain's and the 527's attacks. This is more fallout from the Swiftboat trauma the Democrats suffered in 2004.
I have never heard a Republican call a Democrat unpatriotic. Anti-American, yes -- but not unpatriotic. Of course, Dems act as if any criticism regarding foreign policy or war is an accusation of patriotism. As usual, they are trying to shut their opponents up by delegitimizing any criticism.
John McCain should say something like, "Why does Obama act as if I said he does not put country first? When I use 'Country First' as my campaign slogan, I'm putting that idea forth as an ideal to which we all should aspire. I'm delighted Obama shares my ideal. But I'm baffled as to why he is so defensive about it. When I say I put country first, he acts like I've impugned his patriotism. I have news for you, Obama: not everything I say is about you. Grow up."
McCain should answer Obama's bravado about debating him with a call for more debates. "All right, Obama," he should say, "let's get it on. Bring it." Perhaps it is adolescent, but after Obama got in McCain's face in his speech, McCain must give it back or he will look weak.
The most suspense in the convention was watching MSNBC to see which of Keith Olbermann's colleagues he would anger next.
What is Clinton trying to show when he pulls this face?
Is this the face of grizzled experience? Statesmanship? Or is this bizarre grimace the product of a subconscious mind fucked up from a lifetime of lies and evasion?
The leftist argument about the Bush administration is full of nonsense trumped up by the MSM and repeated to the point that Democrats take it for reality. Guantanamo, torture, violating the Bill of Rights, not enough diplomacy, the world no longer loves us -- the list seems non-essential and beside the point, even if it were true. They don't think in principle and find the fundamental problems with Bush.
On Bush's economy the left gets even more surreal. Bush expanded big government. What would the left have done different, besides not cutting taxes, Bush's best policy? If a Democrat had been President for the last eight years, with the same economic policies (and 3.3% growth this quarter), the MSM would talk about how great the economy was. The "reality based community" sees the world it wants to see.
Obama needs to do townhall forum-type events in which he answers all questions from voters. Right now people only have a vague idea of who he is and he needs to correct that. By answering unscripted questions he can give his personality some definition. We need to see who he really is.
I'd like to know what percentage of the delegates at the Dem Con work for the government. I count public school teachers as government employees.
Let Doctors Protect Conscience by Contract
By Thomas Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Center Press Release
Let Doctors Protect Conscience by Contract
August 28, 2008
Washington, DC--In its latest faith-based initiative, the Bush administration wants to shield anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive doctors from being fired for refusing to deliver such services. Opponents fear that proposed regulations creating “provider conscience rights” would leave rape victims without an emergency room doctor to prescribe morning-after contraception, or a pharmacist to dispense the pills.
“This is the kind of political infighting that’s inevitable when doctors, hospitals, and patients are denied freedom of contract,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Such moral questions have no place in the political arena. Instead, the law should recognize each individual’s right to deal, or refuse to deal, with others on a voluntary basis.
“For example, a doctor has the right to refuse an employment offer from a Catholic hospital that forbids contraceptives and abortions. But if he takes the job, he has no right to force the hospital to abandon its religious taboos and allow him to perform abortions. Likewise, a hospital has the right to hire only those doctors willing to prescribe contraception and provide abortions. If one of those doctors refuses to perform such services on moral grounds, he must take the contractual consequences.
“Patients have the same rights as doctors and hospitals to set their own terms of trade. A pregnant woman contemplating abortion has the right to seek treatment at a hospital whose doctors are unencumbered by religious superstitions about ensoulment at conception. But if that hospital denies her admission, she has no right to demand that the Catholic hospital down the street abort her fetus.
“The correct path out of the ‘conscience controversy’ over abortions and contraceptives is not to adopt new regulations creating ‘provider conscience rights.’ The solution is for government to recognize and protect the individual rights of all participants in the health-care system. Doctors, hospitals, and patients should be allowed to deal with each other by voluntary agreement, with government’s only role to enforce contracts and prevent fraud.”
########
Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor, who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes.
Thomas Bowden and other Ayn Rand Center experts are available for interviews on this topic.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@AynRandCenter.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
RSS
Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogI'm delighted to announce that the Coalition for Secular Government has just published its first issue paper:
That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person
by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
Colorado's Amendment 48 -- the proposed constitutional amendment that would grant full legal rights to fertilized eggs -- would usher in disastrous government controls on abortion, birth control, and in vitro fertilization. It would do so by grossly violating individual rights -- in the name of the faith-based fiction that a fertilized egg is equal to a born infant.Here's the press release:
MEDIA RELEASE -- COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT
New Paper: "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," an issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, published by the Coalition for Secular Government is available on the web at:
http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
Contact:
Diana Hsieh, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and Founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, diana@SecularGovernment.us
Ari Armstrong, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and editor of FreeColorado.com, ari@freecolorado.com
AMENDMENT 48 IS ANTI-LIFE, NEW PAPER SHOWS
"Amendment 48, the ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the Colorado constitution, is profoundly anti-life," said Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.
"It would obliterate basic reproductive rights in Colorado based solely on the faith-based fiction that a fertilized egg is the moral equal of a born infant. The biological facts show just the opposite: that only the pregnant woman, and then the born infant, are persons with rights," Hsieh said.
"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," written by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh and published by the Coalition for Secular Government, shows that the ballot measure is hostile to human life in myriad ways:
* Given existing criminal statues, Amendment 48 would subject women and their doctors to life in prison or the death penalty for abortions, even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
* It would prevent doctors from properly treating non-viable ectopic pregnancy until the woman's life and health was in serious danger, thereby causing needless deaths.
* It would force thousands of women each year to bear unwanted children, whatever the cost to their own lives and happiness.
* The measure would ban popular and effective forms of birth control, including the birth-control pill, thereby increasing unwanted pregnancies.
* It would outlaw the fertility treatments responsible for the birth of hundreds of Colorado babies to eager parents each year.
"The voters of Colorado must protect their reproductive rights against this dangerous assault. They must vote 'NO' on Amendment 48," Hsieh said.
August 28, 2008
Quick Roundup 358
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogHouston, Content in its Superiority
Over at the Houston Strategies blog (HT: Brian Phillips), Tory Gattis comments on, "Cities and Ambition", an essay by Paul Graham that asks whether, a city "has its own subtle message it's sending you about what's important and how you should direct your ambition". (Incidentally, I just noticed that Graham also wrote "Why Nerds Are Unpopular", which I pointed to last week.) This is not quite the same thing as asking whether a city, as part of its culture, has a distinctive sense of life, but it does raise the issue.
Gattis cites a few of Graham's examples (e.g., "New York: 'You should make more money.'", and "Boston/Cambridge: 'You should be smarter.'") before making a short list of his own of the major cities of Texas, which Graham, who strikes me as an otherwise very perceptive thinker, strangely omits. Gattis's stabs at Dallas and Houston, which rival each other for the title of "Most Important City in Texas", are as follows:
- Dallas: a tough one, but I think some combination of wealth, style, and social class. (see a discussion on Dallas here - hat tip to John)
- Houston: so what about our little town of hard working engineers and entrepreneurs? The city of Canion, Cooley, DeBakey, and a gaggle of energy and real estate mavericks? Well, I think we can rule out style, hipness, physical attractiveness, fame, political power, intelligence, social class, and quality of life. Wealth, maybe a bit, but I think the primary one is economic power - "You should be bigger player in business." (even the business of medicine) We don't seem to care too much whether you're an entrepreneur, developer, or top executive - just so long as you're a big shot. And if you're not a big shot, the message is to become one by whatever path necessary - whether on your own or through a large organization.
Sydney is like the Dallas of Australia: Glitzier and a little too obsessed with getting attention for my tastes. Melbourne is more like Houston: More down-to-earth and content in its superiority to the point of not being excessively concerned that the easily-distracted might sometimes miss it.
May Houston remain contentedly superior, but never complaisant! A big part of its secret has been that it is freer than most cities, including its government not dictating to land owners what to do with their property. That freedom is being threatened once again, and we'll need to fight back....
Hmmm! Awhile back, I saw a bumper sticker saying something like, "Keep Austin Weird". Perhaps as the zoning fight heats up, supporters of freedom in land use could similarly display our sentiments: "Keep Houston Free". I like that.
New Links
With all the moving preps, travel, and job-hunting, I have been slower than usual about things like this, but I did get around to adding three new blogs to the side bar this morning. Briefly, they are:
- The Aesthetic Capitalist, who recently posted two zingers from Aristotle, the second of which is destined to bring a smile to my face frequently during this election any time I think about Obamamania: "Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope."
- Decks Awash, a blog by fellow submariner (and proprietor of The Sub Report) Eric Ryle, who wonders what a small submarine is doing on the mighty Mississippi.
- The Morality War, where Rob recently considered why some people continually "fixate on every random, minor, more or less inconsequential injustice that occurs in the world" (as a recent NoodleFood commenter put it): "Since they cannot consistently apply altruism to their own lives - due to the fact that it is impossible to practice in reality - they grasp at anything which alleviates the sense of guilt which results." Interesting point!
A Heartwarming Tale
Reader Hannes Hacker emailed me awhile back with a link to the following amusing news story:
An 85-year-old great-grandmother from Lake Lynn, Fayette County kept an alleged burglar at bay using a .22-caliber pistol.His title, my sentiments exactly!
..
"I had the gun on him before he turned around and said, 'you've had it,' " Smith told Channel 11-News.
Eduoard's Toll
I might as well get in a laugh about Edouard now before possibly having to run from another tropical system that shares with me a variant of my pen name and might want to share my home turf as well.... (Although I see with this latest update that the track has, for now, shifted towards new Orleans. This one's probably going to be a bad one! I'm watching it like a hawk.)
This picture made the email rounds here in Houston recently, reaching my in-box with the title, "First Photos of Wind Damage by [Edouard]"-- CAV
CSG Media Release: Faith-Based Politics Is a Losing Strategy
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogMEDIA RELEASE: COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT
Faith-Based Politics Is a Losing Strategy
Sedalia, Colorado / August 27, 2008
Contact: Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government and co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," Diana@SecularGovernment.us
The wholehearted embrace of faith-based politics by Democrats is the big news of the Democratic National Convention. "It's a losing strategy, particularly in more freedom-minded states like Colorado," said Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government.
A recent Pew survey showed that Americans are growing more wary of the persistent attempts of politicians to inject their private faith into public policy. A majority of Americans of all political stripes oppose the mixing of politics and religion.
In Colorado, the Republican Party's determination to enact laws and policies based on sectarian Christian values has resulted in stunning defeats in recent elections. Colorado was once a solidly red state, but now it's purple, and turning blue.
"Despite these losses, the religious right is still on the warpath in Colorado," Hsieh said. "This election, they're attempting to force God's law on the state via Amendment 48, the ballot measure which would grant fertilized eggs all the legal rights of persons in the Colorado constitution. If passed and implemented, the amendment would criminalize abortion as murder and ban the the birth control pill. It would be a disaster for the men and women of Colorado." See "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," a Coalition issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, available at http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf.
Now the Democrats are imitating this losing strategy by infusing liberal politics with religious fervor. They're holding interfaith prayers, opening their platform to religious opponents of abortion, and supporting faith-based initiatives. Ironically, they're doing so in Colorado, the very state that was handed to them as a result of voter disgust with the religious right.
"It's political suicide. The Democrats will only alienate the majority of Americans committed to the principle of secular government," Hsieh said. "Who can those voters support, when both Republicans and Democrats seek to govern by their personal faith rather than rational principles?"
"To protect freedom of religion and conscience, Republican and Democratic leaders must embrace the separation of church and state on principle. Politicians should govern according to the secular principles of individual rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, not religious scripture," Hsieh said.
The Coalition for Secular Government (www.SecularGovernment.us) 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.
August 27, 2008
What's the Difference?
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogI have attacked libertarianism for failing to offer a principled, intellectual defense of capitalism off and on pretty much ever since I started blogging. Through Arts and Letters Daily, we have a prime example of what I am talking about: Some libertarian theoreticians are attempting to use the work of egalitarian political philosopher John Rawls (most famous for his A Theory of Justice) as a philosophical framework for capitalism!
Before I get to how these theorists -- and I wince at having to use this term to describe these "Rawlesekians" -- came to make such a leap, it might be worthwhile to briefly go over the summary of Rawl's collectivist political philosophy offered by David Gordon of The American Conservative.
The most controversial part of Rawls’s theory is the famous difference principle. (More exactly, the second part of this principle. The first part calls for equal opportunity and will not affect our discussion.) Rawls contends that people in the original position would start by wanting to distribute wealth and income equally. Why should some get more than others? Equality is the default position, but this is soon modified. People realize that we respond to incentives. If unequal incomes are allowed, this might turn out to be to the advantage of everyone. To insist on absolute equality, even if this left everyone worse off, would be cutting off one's nose to spite one’s face.Before I continue, I must interject that A Theory of Justice would have to be in the running for one of the most ironically-titled books of all time!
To deal with this situation, Rawls proposes that all inequalities must be to the advantage of the least well off group. Rawls was not an extreme egalitarian, content that everyone should be miserable, as long as they were equally so. But we now arrive at the fundamental presupposition of Rawls's theory. Suppose that someone objects that the difference principle is unfair. "If I am talented and am able to earn more than most people, why should my income be limited to what turns out to be best for the worst off? Do I not have the right to benefit from my superior talents?" Rawls's theory does not rule out the competitive pursuit of excellence. But he believes individuals cannot justifiably complain if they do not benefit fully from the fruits of their superior achievement.
Rawls argues that people do not deserve to reap the rewards of these talents. Tiger Woods earns millions of dollars because he is superlatively good at golf. Yet his abilities do not stem from any special virtue on his part. He was just lucky that, by some combination of heredity and environment, he ended up with superior skills. He is lucky in another respect: market demand for golf enables his talent to achieve vast returns. Because market demand for checkers players is much less, the late Marion Tinsley, whose skill at checkers was comparable to that of Woods in golf, did not earn comparable returns on his talent.
One might object that luck is not the full story. However talented he may be, Woods had to practice countless hours from his early youth to get where he is today. Does he not deserve to benefit from his hard work? Rawls has an answer that I suspect readers will find surprising. He thinks that if you have the personality trait of working hard, this too is a matter of luck. Even though Woods practiced strenuously, he does not deserve to benefit from this trait. [link and bold added]
From other background in the article, Rawls conjures up his imaginary "original position" and with it, a method for creating a "fair procedure" as a way of organizing a society whose individuals may have differing conceptions of the good.
The article in The American Conservative offers the following explanation of how the libertarian theorists came to make such a leap:
Despite this collectivist principle, it is possible to interpret Rawls in a way that is quite compatible with classical liberalism. (!) One might think that an unrestricted free market best promotes the interests of the least well off class. If so, the difference principle will forbid any egalitarian redistribution of wealth or income. Raymond Geuss, a disciple of Theodor Adorno stationed at Cambridge, has denounced Rawls for this reason. Can one not use the difference principle, he asks, to justify any degree of inequality? Rawls himself does not interpret his principle this way, but his theory does not rule it out. The Rawlsekians interpret the difference principle in exactly this fashion. (Incidentally, one writer who thinks Rawls can be read in a way consistent with conservatism is the philosopher's son, Alec Rawls, though he has so far not published much on this topic.)How society should be organized -- the question that political philosophy sets out to answer -- is a legitimate problem, but building air castles and expecting everyone to buy into them -- while "put[ting] aside their own conceptions of the good" -- is not going to solve it.
It is this fundamental -- and demonstrably wrong -- approach to political philosophy which Rawls and the libertarians share, as the words of Murray Rothbard (whom Gordon cites at one point) himself show!
... Libertarianism is a coalition of adherents from all manner of philosophic (or nonphilosophic) positions, including emotivism, hedonism, Kantian a priorism, and many others. My own position grounds Libertarianism on a natural rights theory embedded in a wider system of Aristotelian-Lockean natural law and a realist ontology and metaphysics. But although those of us taking that position believe that only it provides a satisfactory groundwork as a basis for individual liberty, this is an argument within the libertarian camp about the proper basis and grounding of Libertarianism rather than about the doctrine itself. [as cited by Peter Schwartz in "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty", in The Voice of Reason, p. 315, his italics]In other words, Rothbard, being too cowardly to make a moral stand for capitalism (or lacking one altogether), is not going to make a moral or intellectual argument in its favor. instead, he is going to pull a fast one and trick people whose views are anything but rational or pro-capitalist into "supporting" capitalism.
The article in The American Conservative conveys a sense of surprise that some libertarians would adopt Rawls's work as (what they imagine to be) a theoretical justification for (what they imagine to be) capitalism. Given how poorly-understood (via HBL) capitalism and its moral foundations generally are today, this surprise is understandable. But the only real cause for surprise is that this melding didn't occur long ago.
-- CAV
PS: The article never mentions Ayn Rand as a "libertarian" critic of Rawls. I don't know whether this is a proper omission (because she is not a libertarian) or happened for some other reason, but a few of her words on Rawls bear mention:
It is not against social institutions that Mr. Rawls ... rebels, but against the existence of human talent -- not against political privileges, but against reality -- not against governmental favors, but against nature (against "those who have been favored by nature," as if such a term as "favor" were applicable here) -- not against social injustice, but against metaphysical "injustice," against the fact that some men are born with better brains and make better use of them than others are and do.As a note in proof of Rawls' regrettable, profound effect on contemporary society and of the correctness of Rand's interpretation of his philosophy, I refer you to a news story (via HBL) about a nine-year-old boy being driven from a baseball league.
The new "theory of justice" demands that men counteract the "injustice" of nature by instituting the most obscenely unthinkable injustice among men: deprive "those favored by nature" (i.e., the talented, the intelligent, the creative) of the right to the rewards they produce (i.e., the right to life) -- and grant to the incompetent, the stupid, the slothful a right to the effortless enjoyment of the rewards they could not produce, could not imagine, and would not know what to do with. ["An Untitled Letter" in The Ayn Rand Letter, vol. II, no. 10, p. 168, bold added]
As a partial excuse for the league's behavior is the fact that he is "too good". That boy's words, tragically, exemplify the "obscenely unthinkable injustice" Rand described: "I feel sad. I feel like it's all my fault nobody could play."
Memo to anyone who imagines libertarians to be allies in the fight for freedom: This and freedom are not fruits of the same tree.
Democrat Convention: Day 2
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogThe premise behind modern conventions is that free TV time is too valuable to waste on anything but an infomercial for the candidate and the party. All that other boring stuff conventions used to do should now be done before the convention starts. All that matters is the show.
What a show the Democrats are putting on! After two nights it looks like they are determined to put a face of middle-class, traditional values normality on the party. I have not seen or heard anything remotely controversial -- no gay or lesbian antics, no minority grievances, no Native Americans bewailing the white man, no foreigners denouncing American imperialism, no illegal immigrants begging for amnesty, no stoners calling for the legalization of dope. All the left-wing stuff is left out with the anarchists on the streets. Inside the convention hall, you'd think it was a Republican convention.
Where are the nutcases raving that Bush and Cheney are war criminals who should be tried and hanged? Where are the truthers giving earnest demonstrations on how Bush was behind 9/11? Where are the calls to bring our troops home now? Where are Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich? Where are Al Gore and John Kerry?
This must be the phoniest convention in history. You don't think Barack and Michelle, when they're sipping white wine in Bill Ayer's radical salon, don't talk about "American imperialism," "social justice," "false consciousness," "alienation" and the rest of leftist terminology?
Remember this:
His mild-mannered style has thrown off even some angry black radicals, who want him to speak out more forcefully about the legacy of U.S. racism and economic inequality.
One is Princeton professor Cornel West, a militant black and self-described socialist. Reportedly, West was reluctant to join the refined Obama's presidential campaign until Obama took him aside and explained to him that he had to walk a rhetorical tightrope to reassure whites. West is now solidly on board his campaign as an adviser.
The Obamas are putting on a show to gain voters' trust. They're doing what they have to do to gain power.
I thought the Kossacks would be angry and disappointed at how boring and "white bread" the show is, but they're delighted by the convention. They are collecting their favorite attacks on Republicans like stamp collectors at a philately convention. Apparently, there had been just enough red meat to keep the angry base happy.
Everyone seems to understand that the Democrats need to hide their true leftist nature in order to appeal to the heartland. They already have the votes of the Upper West Side and Castro Street; in this convention they're going after the Reagan Democrats, FDR Democrats and independents. They want to assure religious, small-town Americans that Obama is just like them.
I expect the Republicans to attack this facade and expose it for the lie it is next week. I also expect them to be denounced for "swiftboating" and "throwing red meat to the rabid right-wingers." But if the Republicans don't tell the truth about the Democrats' Potemkin Village Convention, who will (aside from little blogs like this that few read)? The MSM cannot be depended on to do the job. Bring on the swift boats.
UPDATE: Revision.
Fraud or Ignorance?
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogWine Spectator magazine was caught giving out its "Award of Excellence" to a non-existent Italian restaurant, which included on its featured wine list a vintage which the magazine itself once likened to "paint thinner and nail varnish".
Writer and wine critic Robin Goldstein created this fake restaurant (complete with realistic website and all) as a test to see if the magazine would simply pocket the $250 entrance fee and give out the Award, or if they would actually do some serious investigation of the restaurant before handing out their stamp of approval. He presented his results at the recent meeting of the American Association of Wine Economists. Here's more information on his methods.
So was the magazine acting fraudulently or in ignorance? And is it ethical for individuals or groups to use these sorts of deceptive methods to test the integrity of organizations which purport to offer a value to consumers by rating other businesses and products?
Decide for yourself after reading the article.
The Ethics of Emergencies, Gotham Style
By Paula Hall from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog*** SPOILER ALERT - THIS POST DISCUSSES PLOT DETAILS OF THE MOVIE THE DARK KNIGHT ***
In the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight, there is a climactic scene, as follows. Gotham must be evacuated, and part of the evacuation is effected by putting 500 people on each of two ferries. One ferry is filled with civilians, and the other, with convicted felons and their guards. The Joker supplies a dilemma: he has provided each boat with a detonator, and unless one ferry uses its detonator to blow up the other before his deadline, the Joker will blow both ferries up. Hashing out what one would do in that situation became the focus of discussion on at least one blog, which managed to capture the attention of a blog published at the New York Times, "Freakonomics."
I enjoyed The Dark Knight as a well-made movie with some terrific performances (your mileage may vary). But the ferry dilemma didn't occupy any mental real estate in my brain once the movie was over, in terms of caring to figure out what I would do. So my reaction upon discovering the fuss about this scene in the movie was first amusement and then bemusement--why did some people still find it such a hot topic for discussion? Then I remembered what Ayn Rand wrote in one of her most famous articles, "The Ethics of Emergencies" (published in her anthology The Virtue of Selfishness).
The psychological results of altruism may be observed in the fact that a great many people approach the subject of ethics by asking such questions as: "Should one risk one's life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?"Her point was that altruism doesn't tell you how to live, but only under what conditions you're supposed to sacrifice your life. Rand explained this approach to ethics as follows:
If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance): ...Altruism is the dominant morality in our culture, meaning there are a lot of people for whom morality is irrelevant, most of the time. Yet no-one wants to think of himself as amoral. So when can an altruist take morality seriously? In a hypothetical life-or-death situation. The ferry dilemma in The Dark Knight provides a perfect outlet for seeming to take seriously the morality of altruism--in a fantasy world where it doesn't matter if you practice what you preach.
[A] lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical amorality--since his questions involve situations which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever.
For what it's worth, here's my take on the ferry dilemma--in 20/20 hindsight. When one is forced to make a decision under threat of violence, all bets are off. The world becomes a topsy-turvy, down-is-up, Alice-in-Wonderland kind of place, where it's impossible to know what actions would be in one's own best interest. Nothing the Joker said could be a guide to action; he might just as well have kept his mouth shut, for all the content to be found in the ravings of an irrational psychopath. Therefore, I think the movie sensibly resolved the dilemma: throw the detonator overboard. There was no way to make any rational decision about what to do with it; it was just as relevant to the situation as a rubber ducky. Strictly speaking, the scene didn't depict a moral dilemma at all. Where rationality is impossible, morality is impossible, too.
(An aside: just what does it say about the screenwriters that it was a criminal who made the correct choice? Inquiring minds want to know ...)
Black Google?
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogIs there a need for a "Black Google"? According to this article, there is.
In a free market, specialty search engines could be entirely reasonable and appropriate if there is a demand for such a service. For instance, a search engine catering towards physicians might properly give different sorts of results than a search engine catering towards patients.
But the business model would only succeed if there were a subpopulation that had distinctive and significantly different search engine results preferences from the population at large, and the business could get them to become dominant users of their alternative search engine.
Otherwise you end up with problems like this:
Since search engines learn from what people are clicking on, RushmoreDrive had a small problem immediately after its launch: So many white members of the media were visiting the site that the results became skewed and turned up more "white" results...The article also struck an odd note when it stated that Google's search results "alienate the rest of the population" (i.e., the non-caucasians). It's not clear to me that the term "alienate" is warranted.
The Evasion Invasion
By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogThey've arrived in Denver by the thousands, ready to take on America... and change it.
In "The Blueprint for Change," Barack Obama outlines just what he's going to do if elected President. In this way, he will "... put government back in your hands, where it belongs."
Just what does he mean? Is this blueprint a principled declaration of the proper role of government? Is it an acknowledgment that somehow that relationship between government and its citizens has been breached and that he is going to set it right?
Careful not to fall out of your chair when reading this blueprint, because the dizzying list of government fix-its often contains a dollar sign followed by the word, "billions," in the sentence.
And the man who boasts that he's only worked in "public service" (as opposed to the private sector) doesn't hesitate to usurp the capitalist term, "investment," to hide the wealth-bleeding expropriation of earnings that will be required to pay for this fantastical plan.
This blueprint represents evasion on a grand scale, "...a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality," in the words of Ayn Rand.
The Democratic candidate for President is blanking out the fact that it is the individual who is the fundamental unit of a society. To Obama, we are globs of groups: the wealthy, working class families, lenders, borrowers, the bankrupt, the corrupt, seniors, veterans, women, volunteers, methamphetamine addicts, the underserved, students, employers, disadvantaged youth..."
So it is no surprise that his vision of government is to correct the ailments of the various groups... somehow. And to pay for it... somehow...
- "President Bush's policies of giving tax breaks for the wealthy will cost the nation over $2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009... Obama is committed to repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."
- "Obama supports public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests."
- "Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry."
- "Obama will create a new American Opportunity Tax Credit that will make tuition at the nation's community colleges completely free and will cover up to two-thirds the cost of tuition at the nation's public colleges and universities."
- "Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S."
- "Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce."
- "Obama will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year."
- "Obama will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of his first term in office."
This is because, to Barack Obama and his evaders, there is only the collective.
Even when Obama properly opposes any attempt to overturn a woman's right to abortion, it's not because abortion is a moral right, but because it fits into the category of his policies that pertain to women.
In order to carry out his blueprint, Obama will take on America's "enemies" -- a floating, disembodied melange of "lobbyists," "disparities," "agribusiness," "chronic disease," "special interests," and "workers falling behind."
This is what he will do for America. This is what he means by giving America back to the people.
I fear there will not be enough duct tape in the world to patchwork this country back together if Obama's blueprint becomes realized. And the tragedy is that the masters of evasion won't even notice.
August 26, 2008
ARC Debates Heritage Foundation
By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogARC Debates Heritage Foundation
on Whether to Use Military Force Against Iran
August 20, 2008
The Ayn Rand Institute is pleased to announce that Elan Journo, writing for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC), has been invited to debate the Heritage Foundation on Opposing Views, a new Web site that sponsors online debates on questions regarding current news and events.
The question posed in this debate is "Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?" --to which Mr. Journo has responded "Yes" and presented his arguments for this position. Mr. Journo's objections to the Heritage Foundation's arguments have been posted and are available to readers.
ARC will also participate in future debates on important issues.
######### ########
August 25, 2008
"Serving Others" is NOT the American Way
By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogPolitical wives Michelle Obama and Jeannie Ritter, the wife of Colorado's Governor, wrote a Guest Commentary about "serving others" as being the American way. They echo Barack Obama's directive, "I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper."
Well, who is my big brother? Are we as Americans supposed to sit around while others "serve" us? Who pays the rent while we run around volunteering? What if I decide to define myself as "needy" and demand that others give me what I lack?
In fact, I think I'm going to quit my job and become needy so that rich liberals can serve me and feel good about themselves. (Drum roll and trumpets, please) I hereby heroically declare it my duty as a good and brave citizen to allow others the privilege of fulfilling their "American Way" by serving MOI! Gee, I feel really good about this....Now give me your money!!
All sarcasm aside, Obama's and Ritter's pernicious underlying message is this: that altruism should be one's primary purpose and responsibility in life, and that it is immoral to be left free to live one's life as an end in itself.
I've got news for the followers of this mandate: serving others out of altruism is not what made this country great. Our country is distinguished by the concept of freedom: freedom to pursue one's own life, goals, rational self-interest, relationships, and happiness. (Why the hell would millions leave everything behind in their dictatorial or poverty-infested countries to come to America?!)
Giving to a cause should be a secondary choice based on one's own values. It should not be a duty imposed by cultural pressure or law. The fact that Americans do volunteer and donate billions to various non-profits or community groups speaks of the generosity of Americans. It is a result of a natural benevolence that emerges when people are left free to choose their life path and relationships with others.
The alternative of "good equalling sacrifice" versus "bad equalling self-interest" is utterly fallacious. It disavows our nature as human beings. It ignores the historical fact that people pursuing their values without preventing others from doing the same leads to wealth, a higher standard of living and a healthier society.
The liberals are evading the natural consequence of their credo. Just look at the past horrors of regimes demanding sacrifice for the "people" or for the "state" (Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany) or sacrifice for God (Afghanistan under the Taliban).
We must reject the evil idea of altruism. A government that tells us we are responsible for the happiness and health of others is a government that will control us.
Whoever is my keeper is my master.
August 23, 2008
Bush's Statist Legacy
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogVia RealClear Politics is this article from MacLean's regarding the legacy of the Bush Presidency. Here are some highlights:
- Sixty-eight per cent. That is how much total federal spending rose under Bush. That is more than double the growth in federal spending over the eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency.
- Bush was aided and abetted by a Congress dominated by Republicans until 2006. Juicy spending bills were passed on everything from farm subsidies to health (up 44 per cent) and education (up 47 per cent). After all, Bush had run as a "compassionate conservative"; he introduced the largest new entitlement since the Great Society programs of the 1960s: a prescription drug benefit for seniors that will add a US$1.2-trillion liability over 10 years.
- Bush also asserted, and acted on, sweeping new claims of presidential power on issues to do with national security and foreign affairs. Rejecting the traditional division of power with Congress and the judiciary, Bush claimed that these areas were exclusively the province of the commander-in-chief. If Congress passed a statute to restrict or regulate his authority, he claimed the law would be unconstitutional and therefore not binding. ... He acted on his claim that the president can ignore statutes forbidding wiretapping of citizens in the U.S. without a prior judicial warrant, thereby setting a precedent that future presidents will be able to invoke if they, too, want to bypass a law.
- Bush tied his foreign policy to his faith: "From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the maker of Heaven and earth. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." [So much for the notion of the government existing to protect the citizens from foreign threats. --ed]
- "I don't think anyone can say the Iraq war was worth it," says Matthew Duss, research associate at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington. "I think we have averted what could have been a major, major disaster -- but that is not the same as saying we won. Even if Iraq became a Jeffersonian democracy, I don't think we can look at the people killed, maimed, displaced, and the billions we have spent to do this, as an acceptable cost." [Savage should have noted that in addition to freedom for a foreign people being the wrong primary motivation for a war, that Iraq as a base of operations for eliminating Iran as a threat was never taken advantage of. --ed]
- [Bush] leaves behind little coherent policy toward the emerging economic and military power of China. The relationship with Russia is in crisis. It is unclear whether Iran's nuclear ambitions are being successfully contained. The de-nuclearization of North Korea is proceeding [Is it? --ed], though at a snail's pace, but stockpiles of nuclear weapons continue to pose a threat to the world. [This deserves an entire article of similar length on its own. --ed]
- In the year 2000, the U.S. was spending US$140 million on AIDS programs around the world. Today, it is spending US$6 billion, and most of it is going to Africa. [Savage -- who headlines her article by accusing Bush of being "shockingly liberal" -- praises this. Redistributing wealth is not the proper purpose of government, however. Ditto for his efforts in the Sudan. --ed]
- Despite his pledges to do so in both inaugural speeches, he did not manage to put either Social Security or Medicare on solid financial footing for the future. [Or, better yet, abolish them. --ed]
- The issue of climate change is also a blank slate for his successor. [But not in the way, I am afraid, that Savage might mean. Bush should have made a principled stand against the government doing anything on this, but he has failed to do so. --ed]
If Bush's legacy is statist, it is because his ideology, Christian conservatism, is statist, and guides his actions. Savage, who I think is also a conservative, inadvertently demonstrates this in her own criticism of his presidency, which considers individual rights no better than Bush protected them. If Bush is "shockingly" liberal for increasing federal entitlement spending, how can he be praised for spending more of our money in Africa? Or is the flaw with "liberalism" that domestic spending is too "selfish", given that the money still hasn't left the country after having been lifted from our wallets?
If Savage's article is required reading for the facts it brings to our attention, I must once again point the interested reader to C. Bradley Thompson's "The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism" in The Objective Standard for its indispensable aid in the interpretation of those facts. Bush's failure as a president has not been because he wasn't conservative enough, it has been because conservatism is antithetical to individual rights.
-- CAV
Class of 2012 Mindset List
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogThe new Class of 2012 Beloit Mindset List is now out. I like this annual list because it helps concretize the cultural context of incoming college freshmen. Here are a few excerpts:
4. GPS satellite navigation systems have always been available.If you want to feel old, read the whole thing.
10. Girls in head scarves have always been part of the school fashion scene.
19. Films have never been X rated, only NC-17.
20. The Warsaw Pact is as hazy for them as the League of Nations was for their parents.
22. Clarence Thomas has always sat on the Supreme Court.
33. The Tonight Show has always been hosted by Jay Leno and started at 11:35 EST.
46. The Green Bay Packers (almost) always had the same starting quarterback.
56. Michael Millken has always been a philanthropist promoting prostate cancer research.
August 22, 2008
Armed Teachers in Texas
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogThe August 15, 2008 Houston Chronicle has reported that one school district in North Texas will allow teachers who have concealed firearms licenses to carry their weapons on school property:
Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District approved a district policy change last October so employees can carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting teachers follow certain requirements.A number of regular NoodleFood readers have left supportive comments on the newspaper website. From Kelly McNulty (who alerted us to this story):
In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.
Superintendent David Thweatt said the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff's office, leaving students and teachers without protection. He said the district's lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target.
"When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can't defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog," Thweatt said...
This is a wonderful step in the right direction. Everyone has the right to defend their life, and in this situation, adults will be able to defend themselves and their students.From Nick Provenzo:
Someone commented earlier about being scared of "a bunch of kids." Scared of kids? Did you forget Bailey, Colorado less than two short years ago?
It doesn't matter where you are in society (work, school, home, the mall, etc.), you can be threatened with your life. If you are not prepared to save yourself, all you can do is hope that someone else will. (Good luck with that.) I was robbed in my own home (when I lived in Houston) and it's not fun to beg for your life. Now I own a handgun and I know how to use it. I just wish I would've had it then.
Unlike animals, humans are not naturally equipped to defend their lives. We have no claws, no sharp teeth, no tough, furry skin, etc. Man's only tool for survival is his mind. Guns were invented by the human mind as a tool to serve and protect us. You can pretend that evil doesn't exist or you can acknowledge it and prepare for the day it may come to you. Hopefully, it never will, but I'd rather be safe than dead.
I absolutely support the right of a teacher to bear arms in defense of their and their student's lives, so I support this measure wholeheartedly and wish other jurisdictions would do the same.I also left the following comment:
I think it is appalling that anyone would demand that teachers be forced to be unarmed and left as the potential victims of any common thug. The lawful possession of firearms on campus is a sure deterrent against anyone who would seek to use savage violence in the schoolyard and I think it teaches as powerful lesson to would-be attackers: it tells them that the innocent will defend their lives without question.
This is an excellent idea. Armed school staff have already saved lives.For more information on similar situations when honest armed citizens have used their weapons to stop bad guys, I recommend this essay: " When mass killers meet armed resistance".
Back in 1997, troubled teen Luke Woodham started shooting at students at Pearl High School in Pearl, MS. Fortunately, assistant principal Joel Myrick was able to retrieve his firearm from his car in the school parking lot, and use it to force Woodham to surrender.
Unfortunately, Woodham killed two students and wounded seven more before Myrick stopped him.
Who knows how many of those kids could have been spared if Principal Myrick had been allowed to keep his firearm concealed on his person in the classroom?
Penn & Teller have their own inimitable take on the issue in this episode of their television show:
(As an incidental note, Penn and Teller are both big fans of Ayn Rand. They mentioned this to Diana when we attended one of their shows in Las Vegas a couple of years ago and they saw that Diana was carrying a copy of The Fountainhead. We also got their autographs that evening, since I was one of the audience volunteers who picked a card out of the deck for one of their tricks.)
Philosophy From CarTalk
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogAs an occasional listener of the NPR show "CarTalk", I was amused to hear this listener's letter on the following classic philosophical question:
I am writing to offer profound thanks to you for resolving an important philosophical question that has been heatedly debated for the last twenty years. The rumination began on a construction site one summer in the early 1970's, as my friend Jamie and I were working our way through college. The question we raised and have agonized over, lo these many years, is one that I've never read about in any philosophical treatise, and yet I have found it has applied to countless situations and conversations overheard in bars, repair shops, sporting events, political debates, etc. etc. etc.
Posit the question:
Do two people who don't know what they are talking about know more or less than one person who doesn't know what he's talking about?
(Pardon the un-PC masculine pronoun, but I have found this to be, most predominately, a male phenomenon.)
In your recent conversations regarding electric brakes on a cattle carrier, I believe you definitely answered this query and have put our debate to rest. Amazingly enough, you proved that even in a case where one person might know nothing about a subject, it is possible for two people to know even less!
One person will only go so far out on a limb in his construction of deeply hypothetical structures, and will often end with a shrug or a raising of hands to indicate the dismissability of his particular take on a subject. With two people, the intricacies, the gives and takes, the wherefores and why-nots, can become a veritable pas-de-deux of breathtaking speculation, interwoven in such a way that apologies or gestures of doubt are rendered unnecessary.
I had always suspected this was the case, but no argument I could have built from my years of observation would have so satisfyingly closed the door on the subject as your performance on the cattle carrier call. To begin your comments by saying, "We'll answer your question if you tell us how electric brakes work" and "We've never heard of electric brakes" and then indulge in lengthy theoretical hypostulations on the whys and wherefores of the caller's problem allowed me to observe that you were finally putting this gnarly question to rest.
I am forever indebted to you for the great service you have performed! I'm truly impressed that it took so many years of listening to your show to finally have this matter resolved.
Sincerely,
Andy R.
ARC Debates Heritage Foundation
By Kendall J from The Crucible & Column,cross-posted by MetaBlog
The Ayn Rand Institute is pleased to announce that Elan Journo, writing for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC), has been invited to debate the Heritage Foundation on Opposing Views, a new Web site that sponsors online debates on questions regarding current news and events.
The question posed in this debate is "Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?"—to which Mr. Journo has responded "Yes" and presented his arguments for this position. Mr. Journo's objections to the Heritage Foundation's arguments have been posted and are available to readers.
ARC will also participate in future debates on important issues.
Click here for the debate website.
Anna Tomalis, RIP
By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog13 year-old Anna Tomalis died yesterday of a rare form of liver cancer, having had to wait seven long months before she was legally permitted by the FDA to use medicine that the government had not yet approved, but that her doctor wished to prescribe for her.
Greens Against Renewable Energy
By Keith Lockitch from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogGreens Against Renewable Energy
August 20, 2008
Washington, DC--Green activists have been pushing for "renewable energy" for decades, even though it shows little promise--after billions of dollars in government subsidies--of ever being practical and inexpensive. Nevertheless, plans are springing up all over the country for large-scale solar, wind, and geothermal projects.
But now, in addition to their enormous technical obstacles, these green power projects are facing fierce opposition . . . from environmentalists.
The Bureau of Land Management has reportedly received more than 130 proposals to build solar power plants on federal lands in the Southwest. New transmission lines to carry the power from the sun-baked deserts to places where electricity users actually live are also under consideration.
However, the solar applications are mired in environmental impact studies, which one solar industry executive said "could completely stunt the growth of the industry." And the plans for new transmission capacity are being ferociously protested by environmentalists decrying the "permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine public lands."
According to Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Center: "This just shows the true objective of green activism. Environmentalists don't actually want us to find alternative ways of producing energy; they want us to stop using energy altogether.
"The basic premise of environmentalism is to leave nature alone. Capturing and utilizing any source of energy--even ones that are supposedly green and renewable--will necessarily have some impact on nature, and will therefore inevitably be subject to environmentalist attacks and condemnation.
"Since the use of energy is an indispensable component of everything we do in our lives, the greens' opposition to even such ridiculous, impractical sources of energy as solar and wind reveals their basic animus against human life.
"An exasperated Arnold Schwarzenegger said 'if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put it.' But that is the whole point. On green philosophy, there is literally no place on earth for mankind."
########
Ayn Rand Center experts are available for interviews on this topic.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@AynRandCenter.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARC's Web site. The Ayn Rand Center promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."
RSS
FCC rewards piracy in the name of “net neutrality”
By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlogAccording to Ars Technica, yesterday the FCC ordered Comcast to stop slowing down the Internet traffic of users who use excessive file-sharing (P2P) software. Instead, Comcast will slow down the Internet service of all users who use a lot of traffic, regardless of the content. Other ISP’s will probably follow Comcast’s lead.
Basically, this order means that users who are anonymously sharing software and movies using file-sharing software (the vast majority of which is pirated and illegal) must be treated the same as users who are doing things such as video chat, telecommuting, and other application that rely on real-time communications. While not all P2P traffic is illegitimate, surely real-time applications should be given a lower priority than file-sharing. Either way - ISP’s have the right to decide how to best route traffic on their network. Yet no law was necessary - just another politically-motivate decree from some nameless bureaucrat.
Score yet another victory for anti-corporate hysteria and the egalitarian ideology which is destroying capitalism and the rule of law in the name of “neutrality.”
August 21, 2008
The Race to Outdo Obama
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogOver at Instapundit is a long post (for Glenn Reynolds) that exemplifies what's wrong with our public debate and demonstrates why we will get a collectivist no matter who wins this election.
The post is ostensibly about a factual error on Barack Obama's part regarding American generosity. Fair enough, but before even reaching a colon in the first sentence, Reynolds -- like many other commentators would -- has already conceded vast swaths of moral territory to the presumptive Democratic messiah.
Reynolds links to a column by Jay Ambrose of the DC Examiner that allows us not only to fact check whether Obama was really talking about generosity, but also do do something that too few commentators appreciate: premise check Jay Ambrose's argument.
Ambrose writes in reaction to a claim by Barack Obama during an interview with Rick Warren (which he should have boycotted) that, "Americans' greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me." Translation: America is too selfish.
Ambrose translates correctly, but then argues from exactly the same premise of human sacrifice as Obama! His "rebuttal" proceeds to take all American generosity as evidence of our country's altruistic impulses! I, who non-sacrificially donate money to charity, find it presumptuous on Ambrose's part to impute altruism to my actions and a huge leap for him to do so on behalf of millions of others.
I usually donate money for research into the disease that crippled and slowly killed my father or to fund the fight for the freedom that Obama, McCain, and everyone else who is a fan of human sacrifice wants to take away from me. In either case, I am being anything but selfless. I am fighting for my values, and therefore, for my life.
There can be many valid, non-sacrificial reasons to donate to a whole slew of charities. To have a personal, selfish interest in doing so would, I have a hunch, make one more inclined to give generously than if one merely felt an annoying obligation to do so. This is part of why some religions have to demand a ten percent cut of their followers' incomes: They took self-interest out of the equation long ago. (The rest of the story is that one cannot act consistently self-sacrificially and remain alive for more than a few minutes. That air you're breathing might, after all, be needed by somebody else!)
While some who also live in America are doubtlessly donating self-sacrificially -- be it from a sense of duty, contrary to their values, or beyond their means -- it is telling that it is the nation of individualism and the pursuit of (one's own) happiness that is the most generous in the world. If you equate generosity and benevolence with altruism, I would suggest that you check your premises.
Obama's damnation of America for not being selfless enough even as he hypocritically ignores his destitute half-brother in Africa and plots to undermine the freedom that makes such generosity possible should serve as a warning against altruism rather than as a clarion call to outdo him in racing to the sacrificial altar. Nor should it provoke an attempt, doomed by its nature at the outset, to "defend" American capitalism for its ability to make our legendary "selflessness" (i.e., generosity) possible.
America is moral because its political system comes closest to allowing all men the freedom to act on their own best judgement to further their own lives while harming nobody else. In other words, America is moral because she is fundamentally selfish.
To attempt to justify freedom on the basis that Ambrose eventually does is to subordinate freedom to self-sacrifice and thus to leave that freedom open to attack by the likes of Obama and his opponent for the post of Head Bloodletter, John McCain, who also wants the government to force people to serve others. The argument will go something like this: "You agree with me that self-sacrifice is good and you do it anyway. Why fight my attempts to force you to part with something you won't miss anyway?"
What our altruistic "defenders" of capitalism will have done is caused Americans to forget that they are losing their freedom in such a bargain -- and we will miss it sooner or later if they succeed -- and to never fully realize why freedom is so valuable. It is precisely because freedom permits us to engage in life-promoting, rationally selfish behavior that it is good.
To equate generosity with Barack Obama and John McCain's shared moral code is insulting, obscene, and, when carried into the political arena via collectivism, dangerous. I am selfish because I want to live, and I am proud of my choice.
-- CAV
A Fantasy -- For Now
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogJane Hamsher indulges in a frequent fantasy of the left, the idea that their political opponents will lock them up in concentration camps if they gain power. I myself have heard a Democrat seriously express this fear. As outlandish as it sounds, the fear is real to them.
It is projection. Deep down leftists know what they would do if they found themselves with absolute power, and it would not be play cricket and drink tea. Having been taught by modern philosophy that there are no absolutes and reason is a myth, they really only take force seriously. They cannot believe their opponents would not do what they would do.
I am convinced that America is very, very lucky that Democrats have made it to the White House only twice in the last 40 years with the rise of the irrationalist New Left in their party. These are people who believe that the end justifies the means. The only thing that has stopped them from abusing power so far is they have not been able to get away with it.
They are working at "change" -- Obama's favorite word -- using public education and the universities to change America to a more collectivist and statist culture. Someday they hope to reform America in their image. They still have some work to do softening the character of the American people and moving them away from their Enlightenment heritage of individualism.
Sooner or later, in the midst of a crisis created by intervention in the economy at home or appeasement abroad, the fissures in our culture will widen, the weak places will snap. The left will see that opportunity has finally knocked after all these years, and they will pounce. Their future power grabs will arise from the same premises and psychological phenomena that fuel their odd fantasies today.
The Emerging Religious Left
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogMy letter to the editor on the emerging religious left was finally published in the Rocky Mountain News yesterday. They must have been holding it for closer to the Democratic Convention.) Unfortunately, they don't seem to have printed my affiliation as the founder of the Coalition for Secular Government. Nonetheless, I'm delighted that they published it.
Democrats falling prey to religious influence
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The First Amendment of the Constitution upholds freedom of religion as absolute. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, it builds "a wall of separation between church and state."
For the past 30 years, that wall has been under attack from the religious right via "intelligent design," "faith-based initiatives" and now Colorado's own "definition of a person" amendment.
Alarmingly, Democrats are jumping on the faith-powered bandwagon. A powerful religious left is emerging within the Democratic Party, determined to entangle politics and religion. The ideal espoused by John F. Kennedy that the religious views of a politician should be "his own private affair" is dying.
Democrats, religious or not, must speak out for freedom of religion. If they don't, their party will soon be in the iron grip of savvy Christian evangelicals, just like today's Republican Party.
California Children Still Considered State Property
By Thomas Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogCalifornia Children Still Considered State Property
Court’s decision that homeschooling is “permitted” in California is a hollow victory for parents.
By Thomas A. Bowden
In a decision being widely hailed as a victory for parental rights, a Los Angeles County court has confirmed, grudgingly, that homeschooling “is permitted under California statutes.” In so ruling, the court reversed an earlier decision that ordered the parents of “Rachel L.” to send her away to a public or private school, where she could get a “legal education.”
But where’s the real victory for parents’ rights? Rights identify actions you can take without permission. A true victory would have been a judicial declaration that parents have an absolute right to control their children’s upbringing--and that they therefore don’t need government permission to educate their children as they see fit.
Instead, as this decision makes clear, California’s parents are expected to accept the status of perpetual supplicants, knees bent and backs bowed down to an all-powerful legislature that can decide at any moment to revoke its homeschooling “permission.”
Neither the state nor “society as a whole” has any interests of its own in your child’s education. A society is only a group of individuals, and the government’s only legitimate function is to protect the individual rights of its citizens, including yours and your children’s, against physical force and fraud. The state is your agent, not a separate entity with interests that can override your rights.
To give parents a permanent victory, California would need to make its law consistent with America’s founding principles. Parents are sovereign individuals whose right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to control their child’s upbringing. Other citizens, however numerous or politically powerful, have no moral right to substitute their views on child-raising for those of the father and mother who created that child.
Instead, a proper legal system recognizes and protects parents’ moral right to pursue the personal rewards and joys of child-raising. At every stage, you have a right to set your own standards and act on them without government permission. This parental right to control your child’s upbringing includes the right to manage his education, by choosing an appropriate school or personally educating him at home.
Of course, there are certain situations in which government must step in to protect the rights of a child, as in cases of physical abuse or neglect. But no such concern for individual rights can account for California’s arrogant assertion of state control over the minds of all school-age children residing within its borders.
Education, like nutrition, should be recognized as the exclusive domain of a child’s parents, within legal limits objectively defining child abuse and neglect. Parents who starve their children may properly be ordered to fulfill their parental obligations, on pain of losing legal custody. But the fact that some parents may serve better food than others does not permit government to seize control of nutrition, outlaw home-cooked meals, and order all children to report for daily force-feeding at government-licensed cafeterias.
By confirming that homeschooling is legal in California (at least for the time being), the recent court decision will undoubtedly quiet the shockwaves that were threatening to impact the apologists for government education--teachers’ unions, educational bureaucrats, and politicians. Their political and financial survival depends on a policy that treats children as, in effect, state property--but they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, when the undiluted collectivism of that policy is trumpeted publicly.
The defenders of public schooling can now go back to papering over their system’s own failures--the very failures that helped fuel the homeschooling movement, by driving desperate parents to seek refuge from the irrationality, violence, and mediocrity that have come to characterize government education, in California and elsewhere.
But what if parents stopped groveling and started asking whether the state has any right at all to be running schools, dictating educational standards for children, and “permitting” parents to homeschool their own kids? This would call into question the moral foundation of public education as such.
As the smoke clears from the current round of litigation, the battle lines remain as they were, clearly drawn. Are parents mere drudges whose social duty is to feed and house their spawn between mandatory indoctrination sessions at government-approved schools? Or are they sovereign individuals whose right to guide their children’s development the state may not infringe?
The answer could determine not only the future of homeschooling but the future of education in America.
# # #
Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his Op-Eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on the Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.
Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights to Open in Washington, D.C.
By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog|
The According to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "The Ayn Rand Center's mission is to advance individual rights--the rights of each person to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness--as the moral basis for a fully free, laissez-faire capitalist society." Toward this end, the Among its various activities, the Ayn Rand Center will sponsor writing and research; create audio and video commentaries; provide experts to discuss current issues in the media; host public events, talks, lectures, forums, panel discussions, and debates; offer programs to businessmen; reach out to policymakers; and assist victims of governmental abuse in their efforts to defend themselves on moral grounds. The "We are confident," said Dr. Brook, "that the Ayn Rand Center will be instrumental in establishing a future society in which each individual is left free to think and to act on his own best judgment, in which production and profit are seen as virtuous, and in which government is strictly limited to a single function: protecting the legitimate rights of its citizens."
|
A Fateful Forgiveness
By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlogA little noted federal court ruling has found the enemies of the U.S. not guilty of knowingly attacking the U.S. Our feckless judiciary has handed the Islamists another legal victory, one which, given the employment of non-objective law, will be difficult to reverse.
A brief Wall Street Journal item caught my eye, "Court Rules Saudi Arabia Can't Be Held Liable for 9/11" (August 15), which reported that:
"A federal appeals court ruled that Saudi Arabia and four of its princes can't be held liable for the September 11 terrorist attacks even if they were aware that charitable donations to Muslim groups would be funneled to al-Qada.Other publications reported the decision, as well, such as Newsweek, the Associated Press, and the New York Post. Coverage has otherwise been negligible. The case has been dragging on since August 2002 when the lawsuit was first filed. According to a November 22, 2002 Wall Street Journal article:
"The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity and the plaintiffs would need to prove that the princes engaged in intentional actions aimed at U.S. residents."
"Brought by Charleston, S.C. plaintiffs lawyer Ronald L. Motley on behalf of 3,000 families of those who died and survivors of the attacks, the suit alleges that members of the Saudi royal family and other Saudi entities sponsored the attacks by financing terrorism through a global financial network. The lawsuit alleges racketeering, conspiracy, wrongful death and negligence."Even if they were aware that the money the princes were donating to these alleged "charitable" Muslim groups was helping to fund al-Qada and its conspiracy to attack the U.S.? Since when is knowledge of the commission of a crime, or of an act of war, and one's conscious abetting of that crime or aggression with money donations, a measure of blamelessness and non-complicity?
If one merely supplied the guns and get-away car for a gang of bank robbers, and even had a role in recruiting the gang members, but did not actively take part in the robbery, a criminal court would charge one with aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime.
If one only suspected that the gang was planning a bank robbery, but still donated money, guns and cars, one could still be charged with aiding and abetting. Where, in the Saudi prince case, does the role of "reasonable suspicion" enter - that is, the princes' reasonable suspicion that their money was destined to pay killers to attack the U.S.?
What is the difference here except in the scale of the 9/11 "crime"?
In reality, there is no fundamental difference. The chief monkey wrench that obviates reason and logic is the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976, on which the judges of the 2nd Circuit Court based their ruling. Congress amended it in 1996 to allow victims and survivors of terrorism to file tort suits against countries officially designated "state sponsors of terrorism."
The suit against the royal princes and Saudi Arabia (and, in the original suit, the Saudi American Bank) was probably inspired by the successful suit against Libya for the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, which killed 270 people. (For the denouement of that sordid exercise in moral evasion, see the August 15 brief in The Wall Street Journal, "Settlement May Clear Way for Full U.S. Diplomatic Ties" and the details of that suit on the FindLaw site.)
The chief purpose of the FSIA, it seems, is to relieve Congress and the White House the burden of passing moral judgment on aggressor nations and also of the responsibility for acting on that judgment. It does hold responsible individuals representing foreign governments for actions that result in the deaths of and injuries to U.S. citizens, and specifies that such individuals and their actions by implication represent the actions of their governments. However, Congress simply passed the buck to the victims and survivors of those actions, permitting them to hire expensive lawyers and endure years of litigation in courts sinking into the swamp of unpredictable, non-objective, positivist law.
Here are the fundamentals overlooked or ignored by the court in this outrageous decision.
The Saudi princes who are defendants in the case are members of the ruling Saudi royal family. The Saudi royal family is the government of Saudi Arabia. Yes, there is a kind of legislature in Saudi Arabia, but it acts and speaks at the behest of and on the behalf of the Saudi royal family and its Wahhabist religious establishment. Neither it nor the judiciary, which enforces Sharia law, is independent of the central government - which is the Saudi ruling family. The particular princes party to the case cannot have been the only ones who made donations to the Muslim "charitable" groups that funnel money to al-Qada and other terrorist organizations; there are innumerable Saudi princes who form the upper caste of Saudi society and necessarily of the government. They are the government. They all represent and are answerable to the Saudi monarch, King Abdullah.
The Law.Com site on August 15 ran a much longer article on the decision.
"The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shields Saudi Arabia, its leaders, a Saudi banker and the Saudi High Commission for Relief to Bosnia and Herzegovina from suit in the United States. The plaintiffs were a collection of 9/11 victims and their families, as well as major insurance companies and property owners, including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.What is "sovereign immunity" but immunity of a government against judgment and reprisal by another government? If the princes were members of the royal government, would that not in fact implicate them, rather than protect them?
"Second Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs and Jose Cabranes and, sitting by designation, Eastern District of New York Judge Eric Vitaliano said the act 'most obviously' protects the Kingdom itself.
"But the circuit held for the first time that the act 'applies to individual officials of foreign governments in their official capacities,' a ruling that means immunity for Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, president of the commission; Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, chairman of the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs; Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, interior minister; and Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, director of the Department of General Intelligence.
"In its ruling Thursday, the circuit upheld an opinion of the late Southern District of New York Judge Richard C. Casey that there was no personal jurisdiction over the four princes. In the court's 67-page decision, Jacobs said even if the princes were 'reckless in monitoring how their donations were spent, or could or did foresee that recipients of their donations would attack targets in the United States, that would be insufficient to ground the exercise of personal jurisdiction.'"
The mental gymnastics of the three 2nd Circuit Court judges that allowed them to dismiss the case ultimately led them to reach this bizarre conclusion:
"The court also found that none of the exceptions to sovereign immunity in the act apply, including the exception for state-sponsored terrorist acts in 28 U.S.C. §1605(a). The reason, Jacobs explained, was that Saudi Arabia has not been designated by the United States as a state sponsor of terror." [Italics mine.]Also, the court found, the defendants were not "acting in their official capacity." Ergo, even though the defendants are known to have donated fortunes, through bogus "charity" organizations, to terrorist gangs that wage jihad against the U.S. and the West, they are blameless and outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
The federal court, in a time of war, has consequently rejected the fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the belligerents waging that war against the U.S. It has been waging cultural war and economic jihad against it for years, in addition to enabling physical assaults by soldiers and weapons.
The August 15 Wall Street Journal article concluded:
"Lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages were filed by representatives, survivors and relatives of the victims [of the 9/11 attacks] against foreign governments, charities, financial institutions and individuals believed to have provided support to al-Qada. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants gave money to charities in order to funnel it to terrorist organizations behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon."Lawsuits are not the rational, proper way to deal with aggressors. The proper justice would have been immediate military retaliation against Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and other Islamic regimes connected to the 9/11 attacks. (Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Steve Emerson, and others have documented ample evidence of these countries' roles in the attacks.) Instead, the U.S. took action against mere intermediaries and minor enablers of the attacks: Iraq and Afghanistan. The "war on terror" would have lasted perhaps a month, had the U.S a rational, self-assertive foreign policy. Because it has not had one in decades, the "war" has gone on for eight years with no end of it in sight.
When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, no lawyers representing the survivors and relatives of the victims filed a "wrongful death" suit in a U.S. court against the Japanese naval officers who planned and launched the attack. Nor did anyone seek to sue the Japanese government for monetary damages. Either idea would have been laughed at and contemptuously dismissed. The U.S. declared war on Japan, defeated it four years later, and occupied the country to ensure that such a government and the philosophy of conquest behind it never rose again.
Suppose the plaintiffs were able to prove hostile or belligerent intent against U.S. resident citizens, also known as the U.S. One assumes here that counsel for the plaintiffs had solid, incontestable proof of the defendants' contributions to a terrorist organization, a paper trail of their financial transactions; their intent would be immaterial and irrelevant; it is their actions that would be the basis of the plaintiffs' argument.
Then what? Suppose the princes were somehow arrested and taken into custody. Would that not be a declaration of war against Saudi Arabia, since they are implicitly or explicitly members of its government? The Saudis would be the first to make the claim. They would not recognize the princes as individuals charged with a capital crime, but as representatives of the government and the country.
Suppose instead the princes were somehow tried and found beyond the shadow of a doubt innocent of any knowledge that the money they donated to the Muslim "charity" organizations was being used to fund al-Qada. Suppose they were found to be absolutely blameless. Then what? Or, rather, so what? They would retain the status of being enemy aliens, for their government would still be responsible for waging a multifaceted war against the U.S.
But all these suppositions float in the rarified air of non-objective domestic and international law, where a dozen angels can dance on the head of a pin and Saudi sheiks can sue publishers and authors for depicting Mohammad in a good or bad light (thus violating one's sovereign immunity against censorship as ensured by the First Amendment to the Constitution). One must ask oneself if all the federal circuit court judges (in all, seven courts reached the same decision) know anything about Saudi Arabia other than what they have read in The New York Times or The Washington Post.
The Law.Com report quotes Judge Jacobs extensively from the circuit decision, for example, "construing that the meaning of the term 'agency' is any thing or person through which action is accomplished,' and "it is easily open enough to include senior members of a foreign state's government and secretariat."
Because a state 'cannot act except through individuals,' he said, 'the act-of-state doctrine precludes our courts from sitting in judgment 'on the acts of the government of another done within its own territory' including acts committed by individual officers of foreign governments.That is, the princes could donate money while in Saudi Arabia, safely out of reach of American courts, even though the money is being used to attack the U.S. All the defendants in this case are "senior members" of the Saudi government, yet somehow they and their government are immune from reprisal, retaliation, or punishment.
As though to rub salt in the wounds of the plaintiffs, Jacobs went on with petulant arrogance to claim that
"...[t]he act made clear it 'did not delegate to victims, their counsel and the courts the responsibility of the executive branch to make American's foreign policy response to acts of terrorism committed by a foreign state, including whether federal courts may entertain a victim's claim for damages."Yes, it is the responsibility of the executive branch to establish foreign policy. But, absent a foreign policy that asserts America's and its citizens' right to exist unmolested by foreign governments - a policy abandoned in degrees by our government over the course of half a century - what avenues of justice have been left to the victims and survivors of an attack on this country but to turn to the court system?
And when that judiciary abandons the citizens of this country to the mercies of Islamic jihadists - here and abroad - it leaves Americans no option but to resign themselves to being sacrificial animals with no right to self-defense, redress, or justice.
August 20, 2008
A Circumscribed Debate
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogOne of the most profitable pieces of advice I have ever gotten has been Ayn Rand's famous admonition, "Check your premises." It is too bad that this piece of advice is not more commonly understood and accepted in academia, as the following announcement I found at the web site for The Chronicle of Higher Education indirectly demonstrates:
Religious questions can come up in many classes, not just those in the religion department, and the resulting terrain can be difficult for an ill-prepared professor to navigate. Students can object to course assignments on religious or political grounds, and classroom discussions can veer off into realms fraught with pitfalls not mentioned on the syllabus. So what's a faculty member to do? An expert in higher-education law, Barbara A. Lee, will answer questions and share strategies for navigating difficult conversations and controversial topics while teaching, without landing yourself -- or your institution -- in a lawsuit.What in blazes ever happened to the idea of unfettered inquiry in academia? Since when have professors had to worry about treating their very livelihoods like minefields? Given that so many great ideas have started out as highly controversial ideas championed by only a few, what is today's litigious climate doing to our future?
Not to dismiss the need to learn how to watch one's back as a matter of professional survival for today's academics, but what can such a discussion really accomplish? True, one may or may not leave with an awareness of what topics might unjustly land one in trouble, but I'm quite willing to wager that this state of affairs will be accepted as an immutable status quo, or at least one not subject to rational understanding or amenable to a principled attempt to change it for the better. Because this discussion will focus on the minutiae of legal threats, rather than considering the principles that underly academic freedom, participants will leave feeling armed for battle, perhaps, but with no clue about winning the war.
Why is it that students can "object to course assignments on religious or political grounds" and so easily land their professors in court? Do universities not have property rights and the ability that comes with them to set the parameters of discussion within their own classrooms? And do students not have the right to choose better schools when they learn first-hand or from others that a given school does not tolerate an open exchange of ideas? (And cannot those closed to rational debate form their own schools? Why must all of us live within the limits they accept for themselves?)
These questions will quickly lead one to the fact that most colleges are state-owned and almost all the rest are publicly financed to a significant extent. With such state involvement comes legitimate questions about whether the government should be influencing the debate of ideas. The government has no business funding the propagation of ideas I disagree with at my expense, nor should it be in the business of censoring what individuals say. Unfortunately, when the government runs the classroom, it unavoidably does a little of both, in the process making events in the classroom wide open for litigation. This predictably will have the sort of chilling effect on academic debate that made this seminar necessary in the first place.
The ultimate solution to this problem will be the complete separation of academy and state, something few academics today will entertain seriously, much less come up with themselves. But that is the solution, and those of us willing to ask not only why things are in such a big mess today -- but also whether they have to be that way -- will be the only ones not in the business of shutting down academic debate who feel any real power to act for any purpose beyond mere survival.
The task of separating academy and state, which is just a small part of bringing about a wider cultural awareness of the nature of individual rights and the value of the government protecting them, seems overwhelming, but identifying such a problem is, at least, the first step in solving it.
Survive now, yes. But check your premises. You will learn that living is also an option. To my fellow academics, who almost unanimously think that taking the government out of education will result in nobody being educated (and themselves unable to pursue their own scholarly interests), I ask the following: "Can anyone really be educated when they are not permitted to think about certain subjects? Did you work so hard for all those years just so you could spend your professional life cowering from threats leveled by those with no passion for the truth?"
Today's academy looks increasingly like a well-fed prison to me. That certainly isn't what I had in mind during grad school.
-- CAV
Quick Roundup 355
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogJury Nullification
Diana Hsieh posted on jury nullification Friday and sparked a very good discussion I still need to finish. At issue are the conflicting demands -- made more frequent by the welfare state -- between supporting the principle of rule of law and not granting one's own moral sanction to bad laws.
I served on a jury about a year and a half ago, but didn't think to raise the issue here beforehand. There is a lot of good thinking about the issue over there and at least a couple of commenters bring up viable options to use in addition to nullification (should you decide it is a legitimate option) or instead of it (should you not, or are deterred from the option).
I was lucky. We got an open-and-shut case of a repeat offender. Although he was a well-coached defendant, he couldn't beat his DWI rap for several reasons, among them being that he was all wet, so to speak, in the police video of him shown to the jury.
We convicted him in short order, and then the foreman and I had lunch and a beer at the pub before going our separate ways.
What's Wrong with this Picture?
In the course of the ongoing "Spring Cleaning from Boston" this weekend, I ran across and ad (shown at the right) I'd intended to scan a little earlier this barbecue season.
In the spirit of friendly ribbing, I intentionally pun and ask the following question: Why did I skip this contest?
Plant Identification Time!
Apparently, the weeping beech I asked about last week wasn't challenging enough to my readers, so I'm taking things up a notch today.
This time, it's a weed. I've been fighting this (or these) ever since we first moved into a house in Houston -- which is at least a year longer than I've been blogging. (Click the image at left for more detail.)
The plant in question is a vine with a woody stalk, thorns, and tendrils. The leaves are shaped like elongated spades (as in the playing card suit). The vine grows rapidly from the ground, I suspect from an extensive root system which, in our case, extends beneath our back yard fence from a vacant lot full of these. (The picture below was taken only about two weeks after I hunted these down and mowed the yard.) Left unchecked, an individual shoot would grow vertically until it fell against the fence or a tree several feet above the ground, and then keep on going. My mother has had to deal with these, too, and aptly described them as "hell on wheels" when I told her about them. Typically, I have to cut a handful of these off at the ground (at the same few places, if I recall correctly) over the first few weeks of the summer and I'm done for the year.I have encountered these myself in only one other location, a Greek restaurant in my home town back in July, where I was surprised to find them used as ornamentals on a trellis. Before I throw in the towel and ask Felder Rushing for help, what is this?
My apologies for not having a close-up of the leaves, tendrils, and thorns.
Update: Liriodendron and Jeff Montgomery write in around the same time to identify the plant as Smilax bona-nox, also known as "catbrier".
Insidious Government Expansion
While going through the paper this morning, I ran across an article about an effort to get more freeloaders to the polls by ACORN. As I scanned through it, the following passage caught my eye. Note the phrase in bold.
Few other voter registration drives here pay workers. ACORN said it has funding to get 35,000 voters registered in Harris County. Nationally, the group's various branches get funding from banks, foundations and individual contributors. ACORN is conducting the registration drive as part of a contract with Project Vote, a separate national group that advocates for the poor, blue-collar workers and minorities. [bold added]Not to read anything into what is otherwise probably just another run-of-the-mill example of leftist bias in the media, but what else about this phrase stands out?
The very idea that a group pushing a deadly system such as socialism on the poorly-educated can be said (with a straight face) to be "advocating for" them is absurd and if it isn't biased, it is sloppy. But consider today's context for a moment. The welfare state has become so intrusive (and the resulting pressure group warfare so pervasive) that for an average Joe to think he has to band together with a pressure group for his own "protection", although incorrect, is understandable.
In other words, the pressure group warfare inherent in the welfare state feeds into the idea that "the poor" (or ethnic minorities, or students) have different interests than everyone else and so must band together and fight against everyone else. The welfare state here is making man's metaphysical condition seem different than it actually is.
ACORN is not just selling socialist snake oil to the poor. It is fostering the idea that the government does not exist to protect all individuals from the initiation of physical force by other individuals, but to aid in harming others on the alleged premise that life is a zero-sum game -- that our interests inherently conflict.
Not that "unity" is inherently virtuous, but for all the talk about "unity" coming from the left, this is interesting.
-- CAV
Updates
Today: (1) Minor edit. (2) Added plant ID.
The Preciousness of a Finite Existence
By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog[Originally posted to Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government.]
Most religious or "spiritual" values include the belief in eternal life, such as an afterlife in heaven or reincarnation into another life after death. The common theme is the idea that each person has an eternal soul that lives beyond the physical body after death.
Meanwhile, in the here and now, a key goal of modern religious activism is advocacy for what many faithful call the "sanctity of life". Believers are taught that life is given by and belongs to God, and therefore we must not meddle in the godly matters of life and death.
This is the biblical basis for prohibitions against abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research, even though these practices are for the purpose of relieving suffering and improving the lives of living individuals. (And it is also the moral basis for the Colorado ballot proposal to grant rights to fertilized eggs.)
But when the religious interpretation of the "sanctity of life" is the law of the land, people are forced to endure suffering. For example, a woman who is impregnated by a vicious rapist must forever live with the psychological and social burden of raising a child she doesn't want. A terminal cancer patient with agonizing pain only has the option of withering away using ever-increasing mega-doses of pain drugs rather than being allowed the choice of ending his life with dignity. These examples demonstrate the opposite of respect for the sanctity of life.
How do the faithful psychologically tolerate these indignities? By believing in an eternal life: that when it's all over, one's soul will live on. It may go to heaven to be with God in a state of eternal bliss, or it may reincarnate and advance to a "higher plane" of existence with "lessons learned" from the previous life.
But this belief comes at a high price: believing in an eternal soul essentially renders one's life in the here and now expendable. If you live forever, it doesn't ultimately matter if you suffer in this life. All that matters is that humans must not "play God" by taking ownership over their own their lives.
One of the most difficult truths we face as humans is that our existence is finite. This is something we have to learn to accept and cope with. The religious belief in an afterlife is a total evasion of this blunt truth.
The fundamental fact that we all die means that it is this life that is sacred. Therefore, we must have a society that protects the unique, finite and precious life of each living individual. Such a society based on rational egoism has a moral code founded on the realities of our finite existence and the requirements of human life.
But a faith-based society that unquestioningly accepts the idea of an eternal soul can rationalize doing anything it wants to individuals in the name of God, because people get eternal life anyway.
A proper sanctity of life is for the living. It is not for potential life, a dreamy "eternal" life, or for God.
Threat to America
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogWatching the demolition of this house made a new threat to America all-too-clear to me, namely that our homes are shockingly vulnerable to destruction from large monsters. Seriously, they are just too damn flimsy.
(That's Greg and Tammy Perkins' house, by the way.)
Preventing Crime with Gun Free Zones
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogHere's an extremely simple solution to our crime problems - the "Gun Free Zone"!
I wonder why no one's thought of this before?
On a more serious note, I've never felt safe in a "gun free zone" because I know I'm just a sitting duck for any criminal willing to disregard the law.
On the other hand, I've never felt safer than when I'm browsing at our local gun store, because I know that no criminal in his right mind would dare start any kind of trouble in place where there are dozens of trained, armed, law-abiding citizens ready and willing to protect themselves from bad guys. Similarly, I sleep very soundly at our autumn local Objectivist camp-outs, where most of us bring some sort of firearm to protect ourselves against four-legged or two-legged predators...
(Video link via Adam Mossoff.)
Do You Know Your English Words?
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogToday's quiz is simple, but challenging: "The 100 Most Common English Words".
"See how many of the 100 most common words in the English language you can guess in 5 minutes..."
I got 45/100. Diana didn't do quite as well.
Our prediction is that a superstar like Eric Daniels will probably get 60/100 -- no pressure, Eric!
(Via BBspot.)
America's Greatest Moral Failure On Display
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogI could only watch seven minutes of Rick Warren's interview with Barack Obama before I gave up. Warren, an evangelical preacher, asks Obama what are his and America's greatest moral failure. Obama's answer is pure altruism, with which Warren heartily agrees.
Obama says he did drugs and alcohol when he was young because he was selfish. He says he had to learn "it's not about me." Warren at that point says, "I like that!" The audience laughs at Warren's remark, which makes me think Warren has written in his books the very point that "it's not about me."
I have to point out here what seems to me obvious: abusing drugs and alcohol are not selfishness, but are acts of selflessness and self-destruction. Getting past drugs and alcohol is quite selfish if one wants to lead a long and happy life. Although Obama's position is absurd, Warren agrees with him entirely.
Obama went on to say America's greatest moral failure was the failure to be sufficiently altruistic, although he didn't use these words. He quoted scripture to back up his idea that we have to help the least among us.
Well, there you have the perfect nightmare, the joining of the New Left with the religious right. Rick Warren, a man greatly admired by the religious Republican Hugh Hewitt, was in complete agreement with Obama's altruism. How can Republicans resist Obama's altruism when they hold the same morality?
From what I read at the Dougout, McCain's answer to Warren's question about America's moral failure was as even worse than Obama's:
McCain said the nation's greatest moral shortcoming is its failure to "devote ourselves to causes greater than our self-interests."
America's greatest moral failure is in fact altruism, the morality of Rick Warren's religion and the ideal held by both Obama and McCain. The Declaration of Independence holds that Americans have a right to the pursuit of happiness. Altruists hold that the pursuit of happiness is immoral and that everyone has a duty to sacrifice for the least among us. The differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are mere quibbling over who sets the standard of sacrifice, God or the state.
Whichever candidate wins in November, the next four years should see liberty in America take some terrible blows. We will be marched down the road to serfdom in the name of sacrifice, with Biblical scripture quoted to justify every step of the way.
The McGovern Example
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogEleanor Clift joins the effort to discredit all attacks on Democrats as smears by looking at history.
The Republican formula hasn't changed much in the almost four decades since the Nixon campaign branded George McGovern the candidate of the three A's--acid, amnesty and abortion. McGovern, still trim and agile at 86, explained to an audience of political buffs at the National Press Club this week how that caricature took hold, and what little resemblance it bore to his positions on those issues. "I told my staff we don't have to answer this stuff," he said, adding, "I was wrong."
McGovern thought his views on these issues spoke for themselves. He opposed legalizing hard drugs, but he thought marijuana possession should be a misdemeanor, not a felony. He opposed amnesty in the midst of a war, but said he would look at it after the war ended, telling protesters, "It's the law of the land. If you don't want to go, be prepared to go to jail." His position on abortion was conservative; he thought it should be left up to the states.
President Nixon wouldn't debate him or even risk appearing in the same city. "Judging by the results, I don't know what he was afraid of," McGovern quipped. Nixon won in a landslide. The Vietnam War raged on and McGovern was dubbed a peacenik. He had been a decorated bomber pilot in World War II, service he didn't showcase. He didn't think his love of country or his patriotism would ever be questioned.
I would not be surprised if Nixon smeared McGovern. Nixon was a disastrous president in many ways, the ultimate pragmatist who governed by the seat of his pants. But I don't think Nixon's paranoid smears were as important as McGovern's weaknesses.
I was 15 years old in 1972. In many ways I was your typical public-educated idiot. I was not interested in politics. I was interested in playing Rock'n'Roll, acting in plays, drinking Schlitz and smoking -- tobacco and, er, other stuff. My education came later, after I read Atlas Shrugged at age 20 and became interested in the world of ideas.
I remember one thing about McGovern. This memory might not be accurate through the haze of 36 years, but it's what I remember: McGovern promised to give everyone in America $1,000. (I don't know if I remember this from 1972 or from later reading about McGovern in a bound edition of The Ayn Rand Letter.)
Now, since McGovern did not himself have that kind of money to throw around, where would it come from? From taxpayers. It was a redistribution scheme, taking from the rich and giving to the less rich and the poor. It was a crude attempt to buy votes.
Ironically, this year the government gave everyone $600. The Republicans today have almost descended to where McGovern was in 1972. Today America is more corrupt and statist than it was in 1972. Back then McGovern's redistribution scheme was novel and somewhat shocking. It was seen for what it was: socialism. (Thanks to Bush and today's Republicans for blurring that truth! Too bad there's not a hell because the entire party deserves to rot in it.)
I don't remember Nixon's idiocy about McGovern. I remember McGovern's idiocy. The American people were smart enough in 1972 to understand who McGovern really was. He represented the left wing of the party, the New Left that now controls the party. Back then there were still right-wing Democrats, and McGovern was not one of them. Nobody needed Nixon's help to see this.
The notion that for 36 years Democrats have lost mainly because of Republican smears and playing on the fears of voters is not true. It's a gross underestimation of voter rationality. It's the kind of thing liberal-leftists tell themselves in order to evade the truth.
The simple truth is that the Democrats are to the left of the American people. This reality might be changing or it might not. The New Leftist ideologies -- multiculturalism, environmentalism, feminism, gay rights, and so on -- are indoctrinated into Americans throughout their public education (government schooling). At the same time, religion is spreading and growing stronger in our culture. How all this is changing America we don't know yet, but I fear some ghastly mutant will arise from this swamp of collectivism-altruism-mysticism -- a monstrous hybrid of environmentalism and religion. It will be a creed dedicated to renunciation of life on Earth in the name of God and the Holy Spotted Owl.
The Democrats don't want to examine their ideas, so they blame their losses on Republican smears. This is partly projection; as emotionalists and irrationalists, they have lost confidence in reason. They believe lies and character assassination are metaphysically potent, whereas reason is just a game philosophers play in their ivory towers.
The left's obsession with smears is based on a profound contempt for the American people. It makes sense, given their collectivist premise: the people are a helpless, only temporarily able mass that must be taken care of from cradle to grave by the wise altruists of the state. Such creatures would be incapable of reason. Democrats take the fact that many Americans vote for Republicans as evidence that they are not smart enough to vote for their self-interest. After all, Democrats think, we'll take care of you! Those cruel Republicans will send you out alone into the snow.
As I noted in the comments to my last post, this entire campaign against right-wing books is not about answering lies with reason. Instead of answering their critics, the left is trying to shut them up by discrediting the very idea of anti-Democrat books.
They are fighting what they call smears with a smear campaign. Their main focus is not to answer point for point using reason to find the truth. Their goal is to make people associate books against Democrats with smears. The MSM is chugging away, hoping that if they repeat this notion enough times, it will become... what's the word? Not the truth, because there is no objective truth in postmodern philosophy. They hope this notion will become our collectively accepted narrative.
August 18, 2008
A Lesser Evil?
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogAwhile back, I wrote of the Clinton campaign:
In the short span of a political campaign, should something sufficiently bad come to light about Barack Obama, he will have no time for the public to forget, and Hillary will be waiting in the wings, and made to look relatively more worthy than she deserves. (And without firm moral principles to guide one's judgement, appearances are effectively everything. She will have effectively been "cleansed" in the eyes of many by Obama.)Pardon me for feeling prescient, but speculation has been building lately to the effect that Hillary Clinton might be plotting to yank the rug out from under Barack Obama. Just yesterday, the New York Daily News put out a column about Barack Obama's playing defense at his own convention, making some pretty big concessions to the Clintons:
And the Clintons, having the requisite moral turpitude to make it as politicians in today's culture have a firm basis in reality to hope that Obama has another yet-to-be revealed skeleton in his closet. He is, after all, one of them under his skin.
Obama blinked and stands guilty of appeasing Clinton by agreeing to a roll call vote for her nomination. That he might not have had much choice if he wanted peace only proves the point that he's playing defense at his own convention.Michael Goodwin doesn't go as far as stating that Clinton could secure the Democratic nomination, but the American Thinker (via Dismuke) did last week, and considered how and why such an upset could occur.
What does he get out of it? Not much and not for long.
The fleeting sense that he is a magnanimous nominee won't get him a single vote he wouldn't get anyway. Ditto for the idea that he's going the extra mile to unify the party. Those who refuse to accept him as the legitimate winner aren't likely to do so just because he caves into her demands.
...
The substantive problem for Obama is that he is already underperforming against John McCain. He limped across the finish line in the primaries and, since Clinton conceded in June, his poll numbers have flat-lined.
...
[T]he list of what Hillary wants and what Hillary gets is unprecedented for somebody who lost the nomination.[link dropped]
As Dismuke and others have observed, Clinton is very unpleasant and does not do so well under the campaign microscope. But she is within reach of the nomination and has had time for people to forget her shortcomings as a candidate while focusing on Obama's.
I'm not sure we'll see Clinton take the nomination, but it would be funny if she did, and it would be funny to see her try. Nevertheless, I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting for Myrhaf to write a list of "10 Reasons Hillary Might Not Be Such a Bad President!
-- CAV
Canada
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogA stand-up comic on the radio (I forget her name) made me laugh when she talked about Canada. She said it's like America's attic; we forget it's there, then when we go up there we find all kinds of interesting stuff we had forgotten about. Mexico, she continued, is like America's basement -- messier, but a lot more fun.
I don't know if her jokes would make Canadians laugh or just remind them of how Americans think of their country as "America's attic" -- when they think of it at all. America is so dominant in every aspect, from economy to military to culture, that many Canadians must feel some envy and resentment to that big noisy place down south.
Canada has a population of some 33 million, a little less than that of the state I live in, California. With 36 million people, California is the seventh largest economy in the world. Canada ranks ninth.
Canada has a disproportionate number of comedians in American culture. Jim Carrey, John Candy, Dan Aykroyd, Phil Hartman, Rich Little, Howie Mandel, Rick Moranis, Martin Short and many other funny people. It's that accent. It's like Minnesota, only more so. Luke, I am your father, eh?
The most interesting question about Canada to me is defining its national identity. Is Canada more European than American? Something in between? Something its own?
The Canadian Objectivist John Ridpath, as I recall, noted that America revolted against British rule, but the Canadians never did. This difference is reflected in the character of the two peoples. Americans are more independent and individualist; Canadians are more collectivist and statist. I know there are many exceptions in both countries, but we're trying to define the culture-wide sense of life.
I think of Canada as the canary in the statist coal mine. It serves as an existential cautionary tale: this is what happens when a nation gives up its freedom to the encroaching welfare state. How bad will things get in America? Just look north.
Freedom of speech has suffered dreadfully up north in our time. The Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn cases show what happens when political correctness pushes individual rights out of a culture. In Levant's latest post he mentions the case of Guy Earle, a comedian who must stand trial for his politically incorrect retorts to hecklers. If you want to see in concrete, horrific fact how welfare states lose their freedoms, just look north.
You might remember that a few years back some books from the Ayn Rand Institute were held briefly at the Canadian border for suspicion that they were hate speech. (I couldn't find a story about it to link to.) Free countries do not tell their people what they can or cannot read. In its egalitarianism and multiculturalism, Canada is destroying freedoms that Enlightenment thinkers thought had been established for all time. 18th century intellectuals could not have imagined the irrationality of modern welfare states banning speech because it is is hateful. They took it for granted that the individual can use reason to judge hate speech for himself. They would have thought it absurd that a government should protect individuals from even hearing offensive speech.
Canada's system of socialized medicine is another dying canary that Americans would do well to observe and learn from. As Richard E. Ralston writes:
Canadians, we are told, have a better system because they live longer than Americans. Are there other demographic factors involved—didn't they also live longer before they nationalized their heath care system? Is it a better system because, although some prescription drugs are sold at a lower price, many more are not available in Canada at all? Is it better because Canadians wait an average of 17 weeks for referral to a specialist? Is the fact that Canadians come to the United States to spend more than $1 billion a year on health care an indication that Canada has better health care? One wonders why this superior system resulted in the Canadian Supreme Court striking down the law forbidding private insurance "because access to a waiting list does not constitute access to health care." Why did the Canadian Medical Association recently elect as their new President a physician who owns an illegal private clinic in British Columbia if they think Canada has a better system? Significant new spending by the federal government in Canada does not seem to be having much impact on improving the situation.
As I always ask my liberal friends when they advocate more state intervention in medicine in America, "If we socialize medicine in America, where will rich Canadians go for health care?"
If you look at one of the "widgets" in the sidebar on this blog, the one labeled Flags, you'll see that Canada is second only to America in reading this blog. As I write, 5.1% of the hits come from Canada; the next highest, the UK, is only 1.9%. Does this mean Canadians are more interested in American politics than the rest of the world? Since most of my readers are not statists -- like most people, statists prefer to read blogs they agree with -- can we conclude that Canada is a mixed case, with more individualists than the rest of the world? I'm not sure what to make of this anecdotal evidence.
I've never been to Canada. From horror stories I've heard, you do NOT tell Canadian border agents that your trip to Canada is in any way related to work. You tell them you're going on vacation. If they hassle you, maybe it would be best to say, "I'm just a dumb American with a wallet full of money that I want to spend in Canada to help your economy. Would it expedite things if I directed some of my money your way?"
I'm keeping an eye on the country to our north. You can learn a lot that way.
Tsk, Tsk -- All Those Controversial Books
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogLA Times columnist Tim Rutten explains right-wing books:
"The Obama Nation" was written and printed because major American publishing houses have decided that there's money to be made in funding right-wing boutique imprints modeled after the Washington-based Regnery, which has made a small fortune stoking the hard-right furnace with combustible prose. Corsi's book is published by Threshold Editions, a division of Simon & Schuster, which hired right-wing political operative Mary Matalin to edit the imprint. Random House has a similar imprint in Crown Forum, and Penguin Group USA has Sentinel. Their business model -- and this is all about business -- is predicated on the existence of an echo chamber of right-wing radio and television shows willing to promote these publishers' products -- however noxious. Beyond that is a network of conservative book clubs and organizations willing to place the sort of advance bulk orders for controversial books that will guarantee them a place on the bestseller lists.
The unspoken assumption beneath this reasoning is that it's impossible for the right wing to be honest and fair. They must smear their opponents to succeed, thus they build "echo chambers" that promote their ideas to unsuspecting Americans.
You'll note there there is never any talk of "left-wing" publishers. In America left-wing publishers are called publishers, just as left-wing media are called the media. The left is considered the normal, the uncontroversial standard against which all lesser ideas are judged.
Conservative book clubs are actually willing to place advance orders on controversial books. Imagine such a thing happening in America! Publishers that don't conform to PC standards like civilized people who have been trained in universities to think acceptable thoughts. And these right-wing publishers crank out these controversial books just to make money because controversy sells.
To Mr. Rutten there is something wrong with the profits these firms make. There must be because they're right-wing. Only the liberal-left is in possession of truth and morality. Only the liberal-left can be trusted with something as important as book publishing.
In Mr. Rutten's perfect world, there would be no "controversial books." The left would make its case and that would be the end of the argument. Maybe he would be happier working at Pravda. Or is the Los Angeles Times close enough?
PrestoPundit explains the importance of The Obama Nation and books like it.
Right wingers who haven't read the book but who are trashing it based on misleading information they've gotten via the Obama campaign need to take a step back and read the book. They'll learn much more about Obama reading the book than they've ever learned about Obama combing through the NY Times and Washington Post for the last two years. Really. Much, much more.
The only thing that would have come close for content on the life of Obama is to have been a regular reader of PrestoPundit. And if you're a PrestoPundit reader, you'll know that Corsi is routinely and overwhelmingly on track, and only rarely fumbles. A very good record when your subject is the life of someone as secretive and dishonest as Barack Obama.
One reason Corsi's account of Obama seems so relatively complete to me -- beyond his own extensive reporting -- is perhaps because Corsi has been familiar PrestoPundit and my Obama postings, and he's clearly combed through this and many other blogs for links and information about Obama. Corsi is conversant with what the smartest bloggers have discovered in the Chicago papers and from international sources -- as well as in Obama's own memoir.
These "right-wing" books have value because left-wing publishers and left-wing media, better known as the publishing industry and the media, cannot be depended upon to report the truth about Obama or to explore anything remotely controversial about "the One." If it were up to the media, there would be nothing but puff pieces and bland stories all the way up to Obama's coronation day.
It seems that the only lesson the left learned from the 2004 election is that they must do everything they can to delegitimize right-wing propaganda. The Swift Boat attack traumatized the Democrats. The lesson they should have drawn is that they need to field a better candidate; he needn't be John Wayne, but perhaps they could find a candidate who didn't throw away his medals and compare our troops to Genghis Khan. Is that so much to ask?
Yes, it is too much to ask of a radicalized party, a party that has moved so far left in the last 40 years that Joseph Lieberman is now reviled. The "Scoop Jackson Democrats" are a distant, fading memory.
Remember, being a leftist means never, ever learning from your mistakes. Why learn when you can just blame the right wing and everyone you know will nod in smug moral approval?
Jury Nullification
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogThis interesting Volokh Conspiracy post on jury nullification reminded me that I've been called for jury duty on Tuesday.
Suppose that I'm asked to sit on a trial of a person for possessing and/or selling illegal narcotics. Suppose that he's obviously guilty. Should I vote to convict or not?
If America were substantially free, I would be somewhat more inclined to oppose jury nullification, on the grounds that any bad laws can and perhaps ought to be repealed by the legislature or struck down by the appeals courts. Moreover, to engage in jury nullification might seem to be an attack on the principle of the rule of law, as it would permit juries to decide willy-nilly whether to enforce the law of the land or not.
However, I'm not convinced that that's right for two reasons. First, that approach involves sending people to prison (or inflicting some other punishment) for something that they have a perfect right to do. That seems to be a moral sanction of the unjust law, not to mention participating in a blatant rights violation. Second, jury nullification on a high profile case can serve as a major public rebuke to an overreaching legislature. (That happened in some of the sedition cases in America's early years.) Moreover, the judicious use of jury nullification in select cases is not tantamount to anarchy, I don't think. It can and ought to be used selectively and purposefully.
However, America today is not a substantially free society, so the case for jury nullification is even stronger. In fact, as concerns drug laws, America is far closer to a police state than a free society. The most recent mind-numbing case is the raid on the home of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo: "A Prince George's County, Maryland SWAT team raided the home of Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo last night, shooting and killing his two black labs in the process." The man was totally innocent: drug dealers sent a 30 pound package of marijuana to his house, planning to intercept it. The police treated him as guilty until proven innocent, despite the fact that all evidence pointed to his being an upstanding citizen. (You can find links to more posts on the story here. Here's another horrific case. In general, Radley Balko is a good source for news about the frightening tactics of police in pursuit of the war on drugs. He's on vacation now, however, so other people are guest-blogging for him.)
So... back to my original question: If I'm picked for a jury, should I send a person to jail for an action that ought not be a crime at all -- on the grounds that I ought to respect the rule of law, even when I disagree with the particular law in question?
Unless someone offers a good reason for me to think otherwise, I'll have to say "no way, buster." You've got until Tuesday morning to convince me otherwise, if you wish!
Recap #5
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogThis week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:
- Monday, August 11, 2008: Airtight by Diana Hsieh
- Tuesday, August 12, 2008: Breast-Feeding Kills Babies? by Diana Hsieh
- Wednesday, August 13, 2008: Pro-Life Physicians? by Diana Hsieh
- Thursday, August 14, 2008: LTE: Separation of Church and State Versus Amendment 48 by Diana Hsieh
- Friday, August 15, 2008: Against the Christian Warriors by Diana Hsieh
- Monday, August 11, 2008: Massachusetts Dental Pain by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Tuesday, August 12, 2008: Manion LTE on Mandated Insurance by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Tuesday, August 12, 2008: Zinser Interview on "Politics Cafe" by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Wednesday, August 13, 2008: Schwartz Vs. Krugman on Universal Health Care by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Thursday, August 14, 2008: Tales From Canada by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Friday, August 15, 2008: The Ethics of Concierge Medicine by Paul Hsieh, MD
- Saturday, August 16, 2008: Pueblo Chieftain Against Single-Payer by Paul Hsieh, MD
The Wonderous Workings of Prayer
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogWowee, praying for lower gas prices worked! It must be true because a bunch of Christians prayed for lower gas prices ... and then gas prices climbed some more ... and then they went down somewhat. So now, Group gives thanks to the Lord -- for lower gasoline prices:
Forget Congress. Forget President Bush. About four months ago, frustrated by the apparently immutable laws of supply and demand, Rocky Twyman turned to a higher authority in his quest for cheaper gasoline.The article notes that the average nationwide price for gas has dropped 32 cents in the past month. However, this current low is 25 cents higher than it was on April 23, when these Christians began praying. Oh but not to worry, these wingnuts won't let the pesky facts get in the way of their spiritual triumph! God is great!
The recent dip in prices, he says, is proof of divine intervention. "Prayer is the answer to every problem in life," said Twyman, founder of the Pray at the Pump movement, whose members huddle around gas pumps and ask the Almighty to lower gasoline prices.
"If the whole country keeps on praying, we can bring down prices even more, to even less than $2," Twyman said.
August 15, 2008
More on China's Olympic-sized Lies
By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlogAs a condition of its being awarded the 2008 Olympic Games, China had promised increased freedom for its people. Now caught in an obvious lie, Chinese leaders are being put in the hot seat. According to the AP via the Wall Street Journal:
The executive vice president of the Beijing organizing committee, Mr. Wang [Wei ] was put on the defensive by a British television journalist who repeatedly asked International Olympic Committee spokeswoman Giselle Davies if the Swiss-based body was "embarrassed" about bringing the Games to China.It is good that China is getting called out for its many abuses and that the International Olympic Committee being asked by the press to defend its decision to host its games in China. There is something deeply perverse about holding a celebrated event such as the Olympics in a nation that denies its people basic freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. This is not a question of trading widgets with an individual Chinese businessman to mutual benefit and leaving it to the Chinese to improve their own lot. This is a question of whether a venerated institution in the world of sport should lend its laurels to a government that seeks to use the games to help solidify its brutal hegemony over its own people.
China's authoritarian government and the IOC have repeatedly said the games would open the country to social change and stoke breakthroughs on religious freedom and the treatment of the country's minorities.
Worse, the Chinese government is attempting to loose its hegemony upon the Olympic athletes themselves by squeching thier ability to worship as they would see fit. According to this report by the Washington Post, Chinese promises of religious freedom for Olympic athletes have not been kept.
China's ruling Communist Party is suspicious of any cause that could compete with its authority, including organized religion. Officially, the party allows worship only at registered churches belonging to a state-controlled organization; non-registered places of worship are closely monitored. The party also bans foreign chaplains' holding services without government permission or proselytizing on Chinese soil.For all the claims of China's much-vaunted changes, the reality is that China's actions are not all that far removed from when the Society of Right and Harmonious Fists worked to block all foreign influence at the turn of the last century. Philosophic and religious freedom is a fundamental right of sovereign minds, yet here China's ruling clique recognizes no sovereignty other than its own, even when it comes to the freedom of the guest athletes participating in the Olympic games.
In the run-up to the Games, Chinese Olympic officials clashed behind closed doors with their international counterparts over the sensitive topic of whether to allow in foreign chaplains.
In Athens in 2004, more than 100 religious leaders speaking several dozen languages were stationed in the Olympic Village. Many had extensive experience counseling elite athletes facing extreme pressure.
While China held its ground on foreign clerics, it promised that it would provide its own chaplains and that athletes would be allowed to worship just as they would in their home countries.
But visitors to the center say that the majority of the 65 staff members there are student volunteers and that, at best, they can speak broken English, French, Italian, Korean and Arabic. All are Chinese.
For the past few days, athletes and others have been marching into the center and asking for spiritual counseling in their native languages. They know that, in most cases, the staff there won't be able to oblige. That's the point.
I have read that Swedish wrestler Ara Abrahamian threw down his bronze medal in protest against some officiating that he disagreed with. My hope is that an athlete with moral courage would choose to make a similar gesture, but to protest the larger and vastly more serious injustices perpetuated by the Chinese in association with these games. I'm sorry, but as stupendous an individual achievement winning an Olympic medal can be, it is not worth turning a blind eye to the obvious denial of individual freedom that exists in China today.
China's Grand Olympic Charade
By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlogAs I follow the 2008 Beijing Olympics in their extravagant splendor, I cannot help but think that they are predicated upon a massive fraud; specifically, that China has "emerged" as a great nation worthy of our respect and admiration. While the games themselves are spectacular, they are built upon the brute force of an authoritarian regime desperate to show both its people and the world that it deserves its grip on China. This regime has literally spared no expense, including billions of dollars spent upon the games, the literal shutting down of an entire city to alleviate its notorious smog and what can only be described as an outright sadistic and militaristic training program for its athletes. These games are built upon a mountain of human abnegation and for the sole purpose of telling the world that the system that enforces this abnegation offers great achievements and can be trusted as a friend.
Yet as Brandon Byrd at Noodlefood observes, the Chinese system cannot be trusted. Writing about how a minor scandal involving a Milli Vanilli-esq lip-syncing episode at the opening ceremonies has degenerated into the ruling regime's outright censorship of any negative talk about the affair, Boyd writes:
Why China faked the ceremony and why they oppressively censor online comments is essentially the same reason: the Chinese regime is nationalist. At root, the opening ceremonies were meant to be a nationalistic demonstration of a nation's power on the world stage, showing how Chinese competence could produce a magnificent ceremony. That is, it was viewed by Party members (who had the power to shape the final form of the ceremony) as an expression of political prowess. It was China's coming out party, and nothing could blemish its reputation – not even an orthodontic travesty or a flat note here or there. Any expression of weakness or failure is an indication of national failure, of China's inability to succeed. The state, the people, the NATION must look good at any cost, even if it means engaging in deceptive behavior that manipulates children (who may or may not have known about the lip-synching at the time of the performance); even if it means selecting potential Olympic gymnasts at the age of three... even if it means placing stringent government controls on what can and cannot be said through electronic media.The problem the Chinese face with such fraud is that it depends upon our willful acceptance of it; it demands that we shrug it all off and pretend that the games are worth it. Yet the games are not worth it; no sport is worth slavery, censorship and oppression.
The good news is that unlike the Nazi Olympic games of 1936, which were a propaganda triumph of a state hurtling toward brutal totalitarianism, the China of the 2008 games is far more mixed. In many regards, the Chinese people enjoy more freedom of action than we do in America; for example, Chinese businessmen, insomuch as they are productive and don't elicit the attention of the ruling party, are free to produce without constraint. What China lacks is an understanding of the principle of individual rights and the rule of law; any freedom that the Chinese do enjoy is the product of whim and can be taken away just as easily as it can be given. Just ask any of the thousands of Beijing businessmen whose businesses were shuttered so China can host smog-free games.
So while China may not be totalitarian like it was under Mao, it is still very much a nationalist dictatorship; it has changed only in terms of degree and not so much in terms of essentials. The West must not be coy about it. As China works feverishly to present its face to the world, we must see though the pancake makeup and lip-synced little girls. We must see Chinese oppression, caprice and avarice for what it is--and treat it accordingly.
Quick Roundup 354
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogAn Argument against College Education
Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute writes a piece in the Wall Street Journal that makes some pretty good arguments against the use of the Bachelor's degree as a sort of union card for employment.
Finding a better way should be easy. The BA acquired its current inflated status by accident. Advanced skills for people with brains really did get more valuable over the course of the 20th century, but the acquisition of those skills got conflated with the existing system of colleges, which had evolved the BA for completely different purposes.For the most part, I agree with Murray, although I initially felt strong reservations. A solid education should go well beyond simply training someone for a single specific occupation.
...
The solution is not better degrees, but no degrees. Young people entering the job market should have a known, trusted measure of their qualifications they can carry into job interviews. That measure should express what they know, not where they learned it or how long it took them. They need a certification, not a degree.
I thought something along the lines of, "Isn't that (i.e., the general training of an adult mind) what college is for?"
Well. Yes and no. But the right way to look at this would be to ask, "Isn't that what a good education is for?"
Murray is right. College is a waste of time for most people. But they end up having to attend college to prove themselves -- as well as to make up for the deficiencies of their earlier education -- because of the dismal state of our largely socialized educational system, which is unfortunately dominated by (and entrenches) the Progressive philosophy of education. (And follow that link for a good discussion, if I say so myself, of the flip side of focusing too much on preparation for a particular job, which is a possible hazard owing to how Murray's approach would be interpreted in today's intellectual milieu.)
Ideally, our educational system would be free from government control, which would isolate failures in extent and time, as well as create incentives for schools to excel in the business of preparing children for adulthood. Also, the best schools within such a system would apply an objective theory of epistemology to the problems peculiar to their business. In such a system, most people would be fine without college and better off than most who attend it are today.
It isn't a matter of REclaiming anything....
At Slate is one of those aggravating partially-correct articles one runs across from time to time. Linda Hirshman rightly notes that the left needs to stand up for the morality of abortion -- only to wrongly prescribe altruism as the moral basis for doing so and, worse still, fail to challenge the mystical basis of opposition to abortion.
The 2008 platform, just announced, says instead, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." [bold added, link dropped]Rights -- like abortion -- pertain to an individual's freedom to act upon one's rational judgement so long as the rights of others remain inviolate. There can be, for the same reason, no "right" (as the Democratic platform implies) to take someone else's property by government force -- even if excused by the desire to use it to implement those choices.
Failing to respect one right, like property, while attempting to uphold another, like the control of one's own person, is to undercut the correct part of one's own position. Conservatives used to make a similar error when they stood for economic freedom, while undercutting that stand by supporting the draft. What difference does having money make if one's life can be put at risk at the whim of the state?
Of course, the crucial objection to abortion, which the Democrats have apparently completely evaded, is that a fetus is allegedly a human life. Every such assertion is based on the mystical belief that fetuses have a supernatural soul. This assertion is left unchallenged. (Is this the Democrats' way of appeasing the religious voters they are starting to court?)
One's politics is based on one's morality, true. But morality is based, in turn, on metaphysics and epistemology. If one does not challenge the idea that the universe is a whim of some supernatural being or the alleged means of "knowing" this by faith, one will find oneself beginning to compromise with one's enemies and eventually capitulating.
The Democrats don't need to reclaim the moral high ground on abortion. They need to find it on a map and get there.
The Cost of Bad Government
Detroit's government is so bad that a house and its lot for a dollar are a fool's bargain:
Scrappers tore out the copper plumbing, the furnace and the light fixtures, taking everything of value, including the kitchen sink.The article states shortly afterward that the bank lost $10,000 in the deal!
"It about doesn't make sense to put the family out," [neighbor Carl] Upshaw said. "Once people are gone, you're gonna lose the house in this neighborhood."
Tuesday, the home was wide open. Doors leading into the kitchen and the basement were missing, and the front windows had been smashed. Weeds grew chest-high, and charred remains marked a spot where the garage recently burned.
Put on the market in January for $1,100, the house had no lookers other than the squatters who sometimes stayed there at night. Facing $4,000 in back taxes and a large unpaid water bill, the bank that owned the property lowered the price to $1.
A proper government protects individual rights. This means, it stops criminals and does not engage in criminal behavior, such as taxation, itself. Set aside for the moment the federal government's role in the subprime lending crisis. Detroit's government is operating almost completely in reverse, and its cost is clearly evident. Read the whole thing.
"Fairness" under any other name would be just as wrong.
The Business and Media Institute warns that a return of the "Fairness" Doctrine would likely affect the Internet, and that it might return under another name.
I am glad they have pointed these things out. Now if only they would take a moral stand for freedom of the press and property rights!
A recent study by the Media Research Center’s Culture & Media Institute argues that the three main points in support of the Fairness Doctrine -- scarcity of the media, corporate censorship of liberal viewpoints, and public interest -- are myths. [link dropped]Scarcity of media is no excuse for government interference with property rights. Crying "Censorship!" when private property owners select their own content is a disingenuous way for leftists to claim the right to commandeer private property to spread their own views. And there is no such thing as "public interest"!
Yes, repealing the "Fairness" Doctrine put many leftist excuses for it to the lie, but so what? The "Fairness" Doctrine, as a violation of the rights to freedom of speech and to property, is morally wrong and contrary to the proper purpose of government. That is why it should be opposed, no matter what its proponents choose to call it in the future.
Apparently, this book of chemistry experiments for kids has been banned by the nanny state for safety reasons! But you can still download it. For now.
How to Buy a New Car
I'm not in the market for a new car, but I've been thinking about cars lately, so this video caught my eye at Boing Boing. The executive summary is as follows:
- Use two full weekends.
- Sell your old car, rather than trading it in.
- Get competitive bids for the final (drive off the lot) price.
- Walk out when the deal changes.
- Don't buy any extras.
-- CAV
This post was composed in advance and scheduled for publication at 5:00 A.M. on August 14, 2008.
The Purloined Assumption
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogAn aspect of modern culture I find extremely revolting is the banal negative connotation attached to such terms as "reality". It is as if simply by repeating the lie that that life is inherently unpleasant, one is being unusually perceptive -- ripping the veil of ignorance from the eyes of his audience. For the second-hand mental pygmies of the modern era, it's to metaphysics what wearing a rubber band on one's wrist is to morality: a way to show everyone that you're hip without having to risk making your head hurt by thinking too much.
Libby Purves, writing in The Times of London ("NHS rationing is a reality we should deal with"), assumes this annoying air as she basically tells a nation victimized by socialized medicine that they've no choice but to meekly accept rationing of medical care by the government, along with any life-threatening pettiness it may imply. Not only that, she even verges on reveling in delivering the bad news. (Where have I seen such spiritual indecency before?)
So there is already rationing in the NHS. Oh yes, there is, and it isn't going to stop under any government. Some local health trusts won't give you a new knee if you're fat, or IVF if you smoke, or liver transplants if you drink. Others will. Some defy guidance and go for the latest cancer drugs, yet have woeful mental health services; some run model services for the elderly but refuse to countenance stomach stapling, or minor cosmetic procedures for patients tormented by their sticking-out ears. As to less visible decisions, GPs - now made strongly aware of economics by the fundholding system - make judgments every day: based on age, usefulness, even likeability. [bold and link added]Her excuse for telling people to put up and shut up is the brilliant observation that -- surprise! -- there aren't enough resources to treat everyone for everything. (Rhetorical question: Why is it that socialists always say this after they've ignored warnings to this effect by capitalists, thereby chopping everyone down to the lowest common denominator?)
The assumption hidden in plain sight here is that the resources taken by the government of Britain for the alleged purpose of providing "everyone" with "free" medical care ever belonged to anyone but those who produced them.
Were individual citizens expected to pay for their own medical care, many, without the illusion of a safety net, would behave much more responsibly about their own health to begin with. Were they allowed to do so, they could decide for themselves whether to prolong their lives past 85 if able. And if they were not able to do so, they would not impose on anyone else unable or unwilling to do so, removing from public debate the obscene question of whether such individuals are useful-enough state property to maintain past that point.
Many people in America are foolishly backing plans to socialize medicine here, based on the mistaken belief that the government will end all scarcity in medical care, and based on a naive belief that their own benevolence towards others will not only be empowered with funding, but will somehow thrive in the setting of a government bureaucracy. They are wrong on both counts, as Ms. Purves unwittingly warns them.
Purves is right that resources for medical care -- like all resources -- are limited, but she is grotesquely wrong that human beings basically being put down like farm animals due to obesity, old age, or "even likeability" is "a reality we should deal with". We still can (and should) choose the option of being limited only by our ability and desire to pay for good medical care from doctors motivated by profit. We can choose to respect the property and lives of others in return for others respecting ours, and having the government protect those rights rather than violate them, as the British NHS routinely does to the British.
-- CAV
Against the Cultural Warriors
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogI'm pleased to report that my letter to the editor on the evils of entangling government and religion was published in The Oklahoman today. The letter was in response to this article: Kern vows to fight for morals in government. It reads:
Thu August 14, 2008The description of the Coalition -- written by the newspaper -- isn't fully accurate. As stated in its mission, the Coalition doesn't support homosexual rights: it opposes government discrimination against homosexuals. (That's a fine distinction, I know.) More importantly, the Coalition doesn't oppose tax exemptions for churches, but rather opposes any special exemptions from the tax laws governing all non-profits for churches.
Kern seeking to destroy protective wall
Regarding "Kern vows to fight for morals in government; The legislator's anti-gay remarks drew ire earlier this year" (news story, Aug. 6): State Rep. Sally Kern describes herself as a "cultural warrior for Judeo-Christian values." Such claims should raise alarm bells for patriotic Americans. A free society can't be founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Bible doesn't uphold capitalism, nor support our individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It demands only that we suffer and sacrifice in obedience to God's will.
Individual rights are based on the objective requirements of human life in society. A person must be free to act on his own rational, independent judgment -- without forcible interference from others -- to survive and flourish. The only proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights. For a government to do anything else -- including promote religion -- is tyranny. That's why a free society must, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, build "a wall of separation" between church and state.
Kern and her fellow culture warriors seek to destroy that protective wall, thereby paving the way for a repressive theocracy. In the name of freedom, they must be opposed at every step.
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia, Colo.
Hsieh is founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, which supports homosexual rights and opposes restrictions on abortion, tax exemptions for churches and government-sanctioned faith-based initiatives.
In any case, I'm delighted that they printed it.
Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogThe Ayn Rand Center is participating in an online debate with the Heritage Foundation on the question Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?. ARC should be posting more comments in response to the arguments of the Heritage Foundation over the next few days. (The interface is a bit strange, I think, but the format looks interesting.)
You can post comments. Paul submitted the following, under the title "Yes, If..."
I would support a war against Iran if they've committed overt acts of war against us.
For instance, if they've violated our sovereign territory (such as a US embassy), held Americans hostage, given state sponsorship to terrorists trying to kill Americans, and openly plotted the nuclear destruction of one of our most valuable allies in the Middle East such as Israel.
Wait, you mean they've already done all that?
Then why is it even a question?
August 13, 2008
Quick Roundup 353
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogHibernation's Over
Wow! While I was mostly away from the Internet, Russia has all but conquered Georgia. Myrhaf points to a Stratfor analysis (and some other relevant information here) and Glenn Reynolds refers his readers to the Belmont Club, which I see is now hosted by Pajamas Media.
Two Views on China
The Resident Egoist, in items 3 and 4 of a "Caught on the Net" post, notes the extent of China's nanny state as revealed by some of its preparations for the Olympics. People are being told how to dress!
It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. What does this say about Chinese culture, however? That is, as a society more concerned about presenting its citizens to the outside world as obedient but fashion conscious cogs than as free and individual men and women capable of making their own decisions.Andrew Medworth, on the other hand, thinks that the Chinese may not "have the government they deserve":
I freely admit that my sample is biased. The Chinese people I have met are largely among the best China has to offer: smart enough to penetrate the highest levels of Western academia and business, usually having rich parents who have benefited from China's recent economic boom, or having lived in the West for a long time. But intelligence and riches are hardly guarantees of the kinds of virtue I have described, and I cannot help thinking that perhaps this fervour for China is just an expression of cultural optimism, the sense that tomorrow not just can but will be better than today.I share his ambivalence about China's newfound prosperity, and for very similar reasons.
Two Forms of "Encouragement" for Self-Censorship
Myrhaf discusses a recent trend by leftists to attempt to cow their political opponents into not supporting non-leftist causes. After noting that the move will likely backfire, he notes, correctly I think that this reflects the irrational and emotionalistic nature of the left: "Apparently, leftists can't help themselves: they just have to release their inner thug."
In the meantime, as Dismuke informs me by email, a particularly egregious example of self-censorship in the private sector, is largely going under the radar.
On Wednesday the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed column by Asra Nomani on a novel about one of Muhammad's wives that was to be published this year by Random House. In May Random House killed publication of the book when it was warned not only that "publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment." Random House decided not to proceed with publication out of concern for "the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."Unlike a similar instance I cited in a column awhile back, this is a large company and, as such, a horrible cultural precedent for freedom in America.
Note that the only difference between the two sets of barbarians making threats here is that one is more famous for carrying out such threats. Our response to this thuggery on a civilizational level, must be to crush it, or we will be crushed.
Book Recommendation (And Question)
On my return flight from Boston, I finished up Newcomer's Handbook For Moving to and Living in Boston: Including Cambridge, Brookline, and Somerville, and have already taken advantage of its advice several times. One thing I learned about from the book was a service I have yet to look into called Zipcar, which may offer a way out of the expense of having to own a car in Boston.
Based on the wealth of information and its readability, I'd advise anyone relocating to a major metropolitan area (or a different part of the country) to see whether there is a Newcomer's Handbook title for your destination. (I recall one for Atlanta and one for Texas, for example.)
And now for the question. Has anyone here used Zipcar? If so, what did you think?
Ravenclaw
I like this self-described "scientific" personality quiz. Fellow fans of Harry Potter will probably also enjoy taking it.
Said Ravenclaw, "We'll teach those whose intelligence is surest."
Ravenclaw students tend to be clever, witty, intelligent, and knowledgeable.
Notable residents include Cho Chang and Padma Patil (objects of Harry and Ron's affections), and Luna Lovegood (daughter of The Quibbler magazine's editor).
-- CAV
McCain and Russia
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogNo one has been a harsher critic than I of John McCain, but I have to give him credit where due. He was right about Putin and Russia long before most people were.
Mr. McCain has called for expelling what he has called a “revanchist Russia” from meetings of the Group of 8, the organization of leading industrialized nations. He urged President Bush — in vain — to boycott the group’s meeting in St. Petersburg in 2006. And he has often mocked the president’s assertion that he got a sense of the soul of Vladimir V. Putin, who was then Russia’s president and is now its prime minister, by looking into his eyes. “I looked into his eyes,” Mr. McCain said, “and saw three letters: a K, a G and a B.”
His hard line has been derided as provocative, and possibly dangerous, by some so-called realist foreign policy experts, who warn that isolating Russia would do little to encourage it to change. But others, including neoconservatives who deem promoting democracy a paramount goal, see Mr. McCain’s position as principled, and prescient. Now, with Russia moving forcefully into Georgia as Mr. McCain seeks the presidency, his views are being scrutinized as never before through the prism of Russia’s invasion.
For Mr. McCain, the conflict came after months of warnings about the situation in Georgia. Mr. McCain befriended Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, over the course of several trips there, and even nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 (in a letter that was co-signed by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York).
McCain's response to the Georgian crisis has been strikingly superior to Obama's. (HT: TIA Daily) Of course, talk is cheap and Republicans are often softer than their rhetoric, but still... it is revealing that Obama gives a standard, bland response then goes on vacation. Like all liberal-leftists, he lacks interest in standing up for an American ally against a hegemonic tyranny. It's not important to Obama.
Bill Quick, one of McCain's most vociferous critics, announces he will vote for him. His number one priority is survival in a dangerous world, and we can't worry about the economy or anything if we're dead. I wouldn't go that far, certainly not yet -- but it's something to think about.
The Democrats in their private moments of honesty must be worried that history has not "ended," for national security issues always favor Republicans. People like Hugh Hewitt know this and try to scare the base every day about liberals handling national security. The difficult task is sorting through the spin to find the truth.
****
And the least intelligent thought about the Russian-Georgian conflict comes from -- may I have the envelope, please? -- Andrew Sullivan!
Since Cheney has exactly the same view about the use of American military power as Putin does about Russian power, I'm not sure what grounds he has to complain. Maybe we should start complaining when as many Georgians have perished as Iraqis - and when Putin throws thousands of innocent Georgians into torture chambers.
The Iraq War is morally equivalent to Russia invading Georgia? America invaded a dictatorship and has turned it into a relatively free country (freer than it was, at least); Russia invaded a relatively free country, and the outcome is undetermined as I write, but if autocratic Russia has its way, the end result will not be the spread of freedom in Georgia.
Sullivan's argument is tantamount to arguing that murder is the same as killing in self-defense. When you divorce these actions from their purpose, then they're both just the act of killing.
Whenever I read Sullivan these days I ask myself, "Was his thinking this bad back when I agreed with him?"
****
This article in the Wall Street Journal is the best analysis of the conflict in Georgia I have read.
South Ossetia is not, as some have suggested, tit-for-tat payback for American and European recognition, over Russian objections, of Kosovo's independence from Serbia. Russia has been "at war" with democratic Georgia for some time. Driven to distraction by Mr. Saakashvili's assertiveness and Georgia's desire to join NATO, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin first tried to bring the country to its knees through economic warfare beginning in 2005. He cut off access to Russian markets, expelled Georgians from Russia, quadrupled the price of Russian energy to Georgia, and severed transport links.
Georgia failed to collapse. To the contrary, it has flourished: After the Rose Revolution of 2003 ended the corrupt reign of Eduard Shevardnadze, the former Soviet foreign minister, Georgia instituted far-reaching reforms to its governing structures, cleaned up the endemic corruption that infected every facet of pre-Rose Revolution life, and found new markets for its products in Turkey and Europe. It persevered with some of the most profound and thorough economic and pro-business reforms ever undertaken by a developing country -- slashing taxes and government regulations, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. All of which is reflected in Georgia's meteoric rise on the World Bank's Doing Business indicators. The irrelevance of Russian economic sanctions to Georgia made the ideological challenge that the Rose Revolution posed to Putin's vision of Russia even more profound.
It is important to understand -- and this point gets obscured, especially by Russian propaganda and pragmatism from State Department types -- that there is no moral equivalence between Russia and Georgia. Russia is guilty of a terrible crime against a country that is, by the standards of that part of the world, free. From the passage quoted above it looks like the Georgians understand economics better than McCain, Obama or Clinton.
UPDATE: David Horowitz says it well:
What was the response of the two candidates to be the next commander-in-chief? McCain condemned the invasion and called on the Russians to withdraw. Obama called on "both sides" to stop fighting and said the matter should be turned over to the UN -- that is to the pro-Islamist Arab dictatorships and their allies. This is a real world test of what Obama would be like as a commander-in-chief. A disaster.
China, Collectivism, and the Olympic Opening Ceremonies
By Brandon Byrd from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogLike many of you, I had been anxiously and ambivalently awaiting the beginning of the Olympic summer games in Beijing. On the one hand, I love the exhibition of raw human potential at some of its most actualized. The games offer a rare chance to glimpse the efficacy of human choice and loyalty to values, as the world beholds athletes who have been training their entire lives to achieve almost unimaginable feats of strength, speed, and agility. That I find the Olympics inspirational is an understatement. I celebrate the Olympics for showing me the height of what's possible and giving me the knowledge that it can be made actual. Despite my enthusiasm for the genuine value I find in the Olympic games, I had some considerable difficulty making sense of the extravagant opening ceremonies in Beijing this past weekend.
While watching the opening ceremonies, I found myself totally confused as to what I thought or felt about the spectacle that was unfolding before me. It was undoubtedly sensational, a grand event that dazzled the senses and left one's head reeling in wonder as to how it was all being accomplished. I heard that China spent something equivalent to roughly $300,000,000 (doesn't seeing all those zeros concretize the magnitude of the expense?) to produce the ceremony, and one can see that they got their money's worth. In the run up to the games, it was not infrequent for commentators to argue that the 2008 Olympics is “China's coming out party” and that the games would set the stage for China to gain recognition as a serious political and economic player. And indeed, this seemed to be largely the theme of the ceremony's presentation. Much of the pomp and circumstance was directed at the end of both celebrating Chinese culture and emphasizing the idea that China wants to cooperate with the rest of the world.
The celebration of Chinese culture went something like this: once upon a time there were Chinese who invented gunpowder and fireworks, had huge drum circles, fashioned incredibly ornate dresses, made some incredible paper and printed on it, and who philosophized at roughly the Pre-Socratic level of scope and sophistication. (The pre-Socratics [Western philosophers before Socrates] were the first group of Western philosophers and their interests primarily revolved around how to explain the metaphysical phenomenon of change (and how things persist through change without changing their essence). They typically did so through claims about how opposites [light and dark; night and day; hot and cold; atoms and void] interact. All this is also distinctive of much Chinese philosophy, as I understand it.)
Were these not the basic features of Chinese cultural greatness that were presented to us in the ceremonies? Perhaps the Chinese also demonstrated that they could get really large groups to do things precisely by drilling them for months on end. But what these massive demonstrations of precise collective action were used to demonstrate were the cultural products of Chinese civilization. Truly, these are not small change in the grand scale of human achievements, and I appreciate these things in the same way that I appreciate their Western analogues. To the extent that these things were done well, they represented significant advances in the human condition.
Upon reflection, however, I viewed the ceremonies as essentially a ploy to use some of Chinese culture's greatest offerings (in terms of its art, innovation, and philosophy) as a symbol for the greatness of the current Chinese regime. My reasons for believing that this is so largely because of a recent admission by certain Chinese officials about a memorable event during its supposedly glorious opening ceremonies.
Today the New York Times reports that there has been a bit of a recent scandal related to the opening ceremonies. The article reports that one of the most touching and memorable elements of the performance actually involved a bit of deception.
At one of the key moments in the ceremony, an adorable 9 year old Lin Miaoke stood center stage, replete with red dress and 'cute-little-girl hair,' and sang a song called “Ode to the Motherland.” (A video can be found on YouTube here.) Some time into her performance, the national flag of China enters in grand, Party-Approved fashion (the song is basically an ode to the flag, making it the perfect choice for a 9 year old girl to understand and communicate) and the whole world goes “Awww! Let's all be friends with China.”
However, this event was not everything it seemed. The NYT reported that the voice we heard was not Miaoke's, but instead that of another girl, Yang Peiyi. It was Yang Peiyi who had the vocal range and skill to sing the Ode to the estimated billion viewers of the opening ceremony. She had the voice of the girl who should sing the song,
But not her face. Photos posted online showed a happy girl with imperfect teeth, hardly an uncommon problem in China. “Everyone should understand this in this way,” Mr. Chen [general music designer of the opening ceremony] said. “This is in the national interest. It is the image of our national music, national culture, especially during the entrance of our national flag. This is an extremely important, extremely serious matter.”As the Joker might ask, “Why so serious?” The article explains:
Miaoke’s song was considered critical because it coincided with the arrival of the national flag inside the massive National Stadium, known as the Bird’s Nest. In his radio interview, Mr. Chen said that a member of the ruling Communist Party’s powerful Politburo, whom he did not identify, attended one of the last rehearsals, along with numerous other officials, and demanded that Miaoke’s voice “must change.”Let me summarize: China's ruling party is censoring Internet traffic because it demanded that the general music designer of the opening ceremony fake a performance designed to glorify the Chinese nation. It was dissatisfied with this element of the ceremony, since at the end of the day they had to decide between a cute girl with insufficient vocal chops, and a less cute girl who had the voice to sing the song. Why choose? Why compromise Chinese national self-image (and thus cast doubt upon the Communist Party's ability to govern an international event? THIS IS SERIOUS! Though they could not choose between Miaoke and Peiyi, they could rebuild them; they had the technology (thanks to Western innovations in audio and video processing software).
By Tuesday, the Chinese media had already pounced on the story, instigating a national conversation that government censors were trying to mute by stripping away many, but not all, of the public comments posted online. The outrage was especially heated over the cold calculation used to appraise the girls.
Why China faked the ceremony and why they oppressively censor online comments is essentially the same reason: the Chinese regime is nationalist. At root, the opening ceremonies were meant to be a nationalistic demonstration of a nation's power on the world stage, showing how Chinese competence could produce a magnificent ceremony. That is, it was viewed by Party members (who had the power to shape the final form of the ceremony) as an expression of political prowess. It was China's coming out party, and nothing could blemish its reputation – not even an orthodontic travesty or a flat note here or there. Any expression of weakness or failure is an indication of national failure, of China's inability to succeed. The state, the people, the NATION must look good at any cost, even if it means engaging in deceptive behavior that manipulates children (who may or may not have known about the lip-synching at the time of the performance); even if it means selecting potential Olympic gymnasts at the age of three... even if it means placing stringent government controls on what can and cannot be said through electronic media.
Whenever I speak of Chinese collectivism, given their communist legacy in the 20th century, I often am met with a response like “Oh, China... sure they're ruled by a communist party, but they're not really communists. Look at all of their economic reform and liberalization!” This response seems to miss the mark altogether. The distinctive feature of communism was the view that individual interests could be curtailed for the sake of promoting class interest. Under Mao and his communist successors, collective interests took priority over individual rights and the liberties they secure. This view is precisely the same view held by the current Chinese regime, though they're replaced “class interest” with “national interest.” The principle that one can see manifested everywhere throughout contemporary Chinese politics and public policy is the same collectivist principle invoked by the communists: that individuals exist to serve the state, that the interests of the state take priority over the interests of the individual.
It was indeed China's coming out party, and the opening ceremony was supposed to communicate a message of friendship, cooperation, and human unity. It was supposed to show how China was willingness to engage in civilized participation with the rest of the world. It included a performance by 810 figures in Han-dynasty era clothing, who joined together to communicate the question “Isn't it great to have friends coming from afar?” and sent “All men are brothers within the four seas.”
Despite the inclusion of elements like this, I couldn't find myself convinced that the opening ceremonies should be viewed positively. Regardless of all the razzle-dazzle, what we witnessed was a calculated attempt by an oppressive government to justify itself through a mesmerizing performance on the world stage. It's a variation on the old Roman “bread and circuses” theme, except, of course for the bread (think how many capital goods $300,000,000 could buy to increase worker productivity and thus help to alleviate the wide-spread poverty in China). The ceremonies were a debut ball for China as a nation, with all this implies for a country ruled by a nationalistic authoritarian regime; they were a thinly-veiled celebration of the state. In this respect, I found the 2008 opening ceremonies eerily similar in tone to the 1936 games in Berlin.
All this is to say, I found China's ceremonial pleas for friendship and and cooperation to be disingenuous. To the extent that a person, culture or political system preaches collectivism, its hostility to individual human life makes it necessarily “unfriendly” (to say the least). A friend is someone who shares our values, and one cannot genuinely befriend anyone who advocates the destruction of individual liberty for the sake of the state. A friendly nation is one that does not oppress and censor its citizens. No amount of fireworks or electronic displays could change that.
To drive home this last point, (that spectacle is no substitute for achievement), I'd like to contrast China's grand debut ball with another debut ball, the one given for Dagny Taggart in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It, like the Chinese opening ceremonies, was an extravagant event of considerable cost, designed to celebrate Dagny's entrance into adult society. The following passage sets the scene:
The ballroom of the Wayne-Falkland Hotel had been decorated under Mrs. Taggart's [Dagny's mother's] direction; she had an artist's taste, and the setting of that evening was her masterpiece.Dagny's enthusiasm for her debut ball wanes as the event drags on. By the end of the event, her initial excitement has turned into a dull complacency, the spark of the celebration now gone. She asks:
"Dagny, there are things I would like you to learn to notice," she said, "lights, colors, flowers, music. They are not as negligible as you might think."
"I've never thought they're negligible," Dagny answered happily. For once, Mrs. Taggart felt a bond between them; Dagny was looking at her with a child's grateful trust. "They're the things that make life beautiful," said Mrs. Taggart. "I want this evening to be very beautiful for you, Dagny. The first ball is the most romantic event of one's life."
"Mother, do they think it's exactly in reverse?" she asked.Dagny's analysis seems totally applicable to the Chinese opening ceremonies. The ruling Communist Party seemed to believe that if it surrounded itself with a remarkable, perfect display, it could claim perfection for itself and thus enhance its legitimacy. That is, the Party believed that the lights would make them seem brilliant. But as the world knows, the Chinese government has little to celebrate.
"What?" asked Mrs. Taggart, bewildered.
"The things you were talking about. The lights and the flowers. Do they expect those things to make them romantic, not the other way around?"
"Darling, what do you mean?"
"There wasn't a person there who enjoyed it," she said, her voice lifeless, "or who thought or felt anything at all. They moved about, and they said the same dull things they say anywhere. I suppose they thought the lights would make it brilliant.
I'll spare you the familiar complaints about the government's shortcomings and summarize my view as follows: It is only after the Chinese government abandons its authoritarian, collectivist ideology and adopts ideals of individualism, individual rights, and capitalism that we can recognize the People's Republic of China as a true friend.
It is only then that they will have reason to celebrate in as grand a fashion as they did on 8.8.08.
Fortunately, Art Doesn't Reflect Reality...
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog...At least not yet. Here's a description of one of the plays in the summer 2008 Edinburgh Festival (emphasis mine):
Eco-Friendly JihadNormally, I wouldn't take stuff like this too seriously. But over the years I've seen how frequently yesterday's ridiculous hypothetical example becomes tomorrow's real-life issue.
Like The Guantanamo Years, it is a vehicle for his [Abie Philbin Bowman's] particular brand of comedy, a series of jokes (with some serious bits thrown in ) woven around an unlikely narrative which his blarney makes believable. This one has to do with meeting a pretty, young Scots-Bangla woman who adheres to the view that the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to kill as many rich Westerners as possible.
Bowman has a gift for winning an audience over, and coaxing original, friendly humour from subjects that are neither friendly nor funny. He's done his homework, and there are plenty of facts here, but the underlying message is a bleak one: as long as we continue being middle-class consumers, it ain't looking good for the human race.
And although framed as a comedy, the essential anti-man premises of environmentalism should be apparent.
(Via Instapundit.)
August 12, 2008
$43,000 to Winners of "The Fountainhead" Essay Contest
By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
$43,000 to Winners of "The Fountainhead" Essay Contest
August 8, 2008
IRVINE, CA--High school senior Ryan Holley, from Burlington, IA, is the winner of the Ayn Rand Institute's annual "Fountainhead" essay contest, for which he received a prize of $10,000.
Open to high school juniors and seniors, the "Fountainhead" essay contest requires contestants to write on one of several topics dealing with the characters and themes in the novel. The contest is designed to promote critical thinking and writing skills. Essays are judged on both style and content.
The following students have won this year's second and third prizes:
Second-Prize Winners ($2,000):
Shea Levy, 12th Grade, New York, NY
Kristen Liu, 12th Grade, Warrensburg, MO
Sarah Magill, 12th Grade, Aravada, CO
Matthew Noakes, 11th Grade, Modesto, CA
Stasey Vishnevetsky, 12th Grade, New Haven, CT
Third-Prize Winners ($1,000):
Michael Bruner, 12th Grade, Ames, IA
Nathan Doan, 12th Grade, Elizabethtown, PA
Michael Harris, 11th Grade, Burbank, CA
Yameen Huq, 12th Grade, Cumming, GA
Jessica Hwang, 11th Grade, Columbia, MO
David Kurz, 12th Grade, Smithsburg, MD
Jade Lawrence, 12th Grade, Fallbrook, CA
Molly Ma, 11th Grade, Richmond, VA
Madeline Magnuson, 11th Grade, Idaho Falls, ID
Raphael Pond, 12th Grade, Westminster, MD
In addition to the $30,000 awarded to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners, other finalists and semifinalists received a total of $13,000.
=======
First published in 1943, "The Fountainhead" offers the vision of a totally independent man, architect Howard Roark, who stands against society's conventions.
Since 1985 a total of more than 190,000 high school students from around the world have entered ARI essay contests. This year, more than 5,000 students submitted their essays on "The Fountainhead."
Each year ARI awards more than $57,000 in prizes to high school students and has given away more than a half a million dollars to contest winners during the past 23 years.
Information about next year's competition can be found at http://aynrand.org/contests.
Media inquiries: media@aynrand.org
949-222-6550, ext 213
RSS
Beware the Obesity Alarmists
By Keith Lockitch from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
Beware the Obesity Alarmists
August 11, 2008
Irvine, CA--A new study on America's "obesity epidemic" projects that if trends of the past thirty years continue, every American could be overweight by 2048. Warning that this epidemic could impose hundreds of billions of dollars in health-care costs on Americans, obesity activists are urging coercive measures to curb obesity, such as forcing the fast food industry to offer healthier fare.
"No doubt the obesity alarmists will use this study's far-fetched conclusion to try to scare us into giving up more of our freedom," said Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. "What their arguments spotlight, however, is not a need to curtail freedom, but to expand it.
"In warning us of the massive 'social costs' imposed by obesity, the obesity alarmists fail to ask a crucial question: Why are we footing the bill for other people's health care in the first place? The answer is that the government forces us to. Through paternalistic welfare state programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, and through the government-imposed employer-based health insurance system, government relieves the individual of the financial burden of his own health care, and passes the buck on to the rest of us.
"If the government then begins to dictate how many cookies we can eat, or what food McDonald's can sell, it would compound that injustice: using a problem caused by paternalism to justify more paternalism.
"Of course it should worry us if millions of Americans are becoming unhealthily overweight. Those who are genuinely concerned should try to persuade people to eat better and exercise. What we must not do is let the state assume coercive control over diets and food supplies.
"We may or may not be suffering from an obesity epidemic, but there is no question we face an epidemic of paternalism. And for that the solution is simple: more freedom."
### ### ###
Ayn Rand Institute experts are available for interviews on this topic.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@aynrand.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."
$6,500 to Winners of "Anthem" Essay Contest
By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
$6,500 to Winners of "Anthem" Essay Contest
August 11, 2008
IRVINE, CA--High school freshman, Adam Perelman, from Sunnyvale, CA, is the winner of the Ayn Rand Institute's annual "Anthem" essay contest, for which he received a prize of $2,000.
Open to 9th and 10th graders, and, beginning in 2009, to 8th graders as well, the "Anthem" essay contest requires contestants to write on one of several topics dealing with the characters and themes in the novel. The contest is designed to promote critical thinking and writing skills. Essays are judged on both style and content.
The following students have won this year's second and third prizes:
Second-Prize Winners ($500):
Tristan Aumentado Armstrong, Foundations for the Future Charter Academy, Calgary, AB, Canada
Dinah DeWald, Arizona School for the Arts, Phoenix, AZ
Emilie Finke, Lutheran South Academy, Houston, TX
Will Heberlein, Pomona High School, Arvada, CO
Margaret Johnson, Glynn Academy, Brunswick, GA
Third-Prize Winners ($200):
Jennifer Chan, Harvard-Westlake High School, North Hollywood, CA
Jennifer Choi, Sunny Hills High School, Fullerton, CA
Sarah Crestol, Irvine High School, Irvine, CA
Richard Fang, I.H. Kempner High School, Sugar Land, TX
Branden Lewiston, Indianola High School, Indianola, IN
Angela Li, Cypress Falls High School, Houston, TX
Jared Peterson, Westlake High School, Austin, TX
Nancy Roane, Paul W. Bryant High School, Cottondale, AL
Michael Saulle, Harborfields High School, Greenlawn, NY
Marija Zaruba, Sahuaro High School, Tuscon, AZ
===
First published in 1938, "Anthem" depicts a collectivist dictatorship in a future in which the word "I" has vanished, and how a lone dissident discovers the lost word's spiritual meaning.
Since 1985 a total of more than 190,000 high school students from around the world have entered ARI essay contests. This year, more than 13,000 students submitted their essays to the "Anthem" contest.
Each year ARI awards more than $57,000 in prizes to high school students and has given away more than a half a million dollars to contest winners during the past 23 years.
Information about next year's competition can be found at http://aynrand.org/contests
Media inquiries: media@aynrand.org
949-222-6550, ext. 213
$6,500 to Winners of "Anthem" Essay Contest
By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
$6,500 to Winners of "Anthem" Essay Contest
August 11, 2008
IRVINE, CA--High school freshman, Adam Perelman, from Sunnyvale, CA, is the winner of the Ayn Rand Institute's annual "Anthem" essay contest, for which he received a prize of $2,000.
Open to 9th and 10th graders, and, beginning in 2009, to 8th graders as well, the "Anthem" essay contest requires contestants to write on one of several topics dealing with the characters and themes in the novel. The contest is designed to promote critical thinking and writing skills. Essays are judged on both style and content.
The following students have won this year's second and third prizes:
Second-Prize Winners ($500):
Tristan Aumentado Armstrong, Foundations for the Future Charter Academy, Calgary, AB, Canada
Dinah DeWald, Arizona School for the Arts, Phoenix, AZ
Emilie Finke, Lutheran South Academy, Houston, TX
Will Heberlein, Pomona High School, Arvada, CO
Margaret Johnson, Glynn Academy, Brunswick, GA
Third-Prize Winners ($200):
Jennifer Chan, Harvard-Westlake High School, North Hollywood, CA
Jennifer Choi, Sunny Hills High School, Fullerton, CA
Sarah Crestol, Irvine High School, Irvine, CA
Richard Fang, I.H. Kempner High School, Sugar Land, TX
Branden Lewiston, Indianola High School, Indianola, IN
Angela Li, Cypress Falls High School, Houston, TX
Jared Peterson, Westlake High School, Austin, TX
Nancy Roane, Paul W. Bryant High School, Cottondale, AL
Michael Saulle, Harborfields High School, Greenlawn, NY
Marija Zaruba, Sahuaro High School, Tuscon, AZ
===
First published in 1938, "Anthem" depicts a collectivist dictatorship in a future in which the word "I" has vanished, and how a lone dissident discovers the lost word's spiritual meaning.
Since 1985 a total of more than 190,000 high school students from around the world have entered ARI essay contests. This year, more than 13,000 students submitted their essays to the "Anthem" contest.
Each year ARI awards more than $57,000 in prizes to high school students and has given away more than a half a million dollars to contest winners during the past 23 years.
Information about next year's competition can be found at http://aynrand.org/contests
Media inquiries: media@aynrand.org
949-222-6550, ext. 213
$6,500 to Winners of "Anthem" Essay Contest
By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
$6,500 to Winners of "Anthem" Essay Contest
August 11, 2008
IRVINE, CA--High school freshman, Adam Perelman, from Sunnyvale, CA, is the winner of the Ayn Rand Institute's annual "Anthem" essay contest, for which he received a prize of $2,000.
Open to 9th and 10th graders, and, beginning in 2009, to 8th graders as well, the "Anthem" essay contest requires contestants to write on one of several topics dealing with the characters and themes in the novel. The contest is designed to promote critical thinking and writing skills. Essays are judged on both style and content.
The following students have won this year's second and third prizes:
Second-Prize Winners ($500):
Tristan Aumentado Armstrong, Foundations for the Future Charter Academy, Calgary, AB, Canada
Dinah DeWald, Arizona School for the Arts, Phoenix, AZ
Emilie Finke, Lutheran South Academy, Houston, TX
Will Heberlein, Pomona High School, Arvada, CO
Margaret Johnson, Glynn Academy, Brunswick, GA
Third-Prize Winners ($200):
Jennifer Chan, Harvard-Westlake High School, North Hollywood, CA
Jennifer Choi, Sunny Hills High School, Fullerton, CA
Sarah Crestol, Irvine High School, Irvine, CA
Richard Fang, I.H. Kempner High School, Sugar Land, TX
Branden Lewiston, Indianola High School, Indianola, IN
Angela Li, Cypress Falls High School, Houston, TX
Jared Peterson, Westlake High School, Austin, TX
Nancy Roane, Paul W. Bryant High School, Cottondale, AL
Michael Saulle, Harborfields High School, Greenlawn, NY
Marija Zaruba, Sahuaro High School, Tuscon, AZ
===
First published in 1938, "Anthem" depicts a collectivist dictatorship in a future in which the word "I" has vanished, and how a lone dissident discovers the lost word's spiritual meaning.
Since 1985 a total of more than 190,000 high school students from around the world have entered ARI essay contests. This year, more than 13,000 students submitted their essays to the "Anthem" contest.
Each year ARI awards more than $57,000 in prizes to high school students and has given away more than a half a million dollars to contest winners during the past 23 years.
Information about next year's competition can be found at http://aynrand.org/contests
Media inquiries: media@aynrand.org
949-222-6550, ext. 213
The Insidious Threat to Freedom
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogEdward Cline's post on The Sensitivity Syndrome got me thinking how potent are the New Leftist ideologies of multiculturalism, environmentalism, feminism, etc. The New Left is far more dangerous -- far more sturdily constructed -- than the Old Left ever was.
The Old Left was Marxism. Marxism is an economic theory with a lot of strange ideas for which Marx never gave evidence. For instance, Marxism holds that history progresses from feudalism through capitalism to socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat. Late in his life Marx scribbled a note that maybe society could jump from feudalism to socialism, and when Engels published this passage the Bolsheviks made much of it, as they wanted to argue that Russia needn't pass through modern capitalism on her way to socialism. They were rather impatient to get to dictatorship as fast as possible.
The entire theory was nothing but a rationalization for state power. It was a reactionary philosophy, a reaction to the greatest, most liberating revolution in history: the coming of capitalism and the industrial revolution. Though Marxists called themselves "progressives," they were regressive through and through. (Today's progressives are no better.)
The 20th century served as a vast laboratory showing in experiment after experiment that capitalism (freedom) leads to wealth creation and happiness and socialism (state power) leads to poverty and slavery. It is remarkable that an illogical, discredited economic theory prevailed in the east as long as it did.
The New Left is not burdened by Marx's fantasies, and is therefore more effective. Its goal is the same as Marxism: the destruction of capitalism (freedom) and the reordering of society under state power. Instead of a relatively shallow economic theory, the New Left is organized around the more philosophic idea of egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism is how altruism is effected in society. Altruism demands that the strong sacrifice to the weak, the rich to the poor. Egalitarianism is how this gets done. In their quest to make everyone the same, egalitarians never focus on making the poor richer or the less intelligent more intelligent. Instead, they make the strong weaker. They redistribute money from the rich to the poor. They stop honoring the smartest student as valedictorian and just call the entire graduating class valedictorian. They stop one side from winning in children's soccer and declare both sides the winner. The strong are punished for the sake of the weak.
Egalitarianism is the most destructive doctrine in history because its destructive purpose is never mentioned and seldom understood. Egalitarians never say, "We want to destroy X"; instead, they announce, "In X there are no standards -- nothing is better than anything else." When there is no standard of value, then you lose all value. The destruction is done for the altruistic purpose of helping the weak.
Multiculturalism, for instance, does not set out explicitly to destroy capitalism. Multiculturalists say instead that all cultures are equal. We must not impose our way of life on some neolithic tribe on a remote island, but leave them alone to wallow in their squalor. We must not offend Muslims with cartoons of Mohammed because we are strong and they are weak. The strong must sacrifice to the weak.
Environmentalists hold that man must sacrifice his interests and productivity to plants and animals and even rocks. Environmentalists (usually) do not attack man as evil, but merely claim that nature has an intrinsic value apart from man's values. It is a highly abstract form of egalitarianism.
Feminists in their more collectivist variety do not just want individual rights for women; they want women to be considered metaphysically equal to men even in physical areas in which they are not as strong. Thus women who cannot carry a man out of a burning building are given employment as fire fighters under lower standards.
Affirmative Action does not strive to give minorities equal individual rights, but preferences at the expense of the majority. Minorities are not lifted to the level of the majority, but standards are lowered for them.
The New Left assault on capitalist culture has been a brilliant success, much more successful than blundering Marxism ever was. Consider: in the 1950's communism was reviled in a movement led by Senator McCarthy. Many on the left disagreed that communism was bad, but it was clear among all that we were not communist. We were capitalist (or to be exact, a mixed economy) and our enemy was communist. Our school children were not indoctrinated in dialectical materialism.
Today the New Leftist attacks on capitalism are held as moral ideals in our culture and indoctrinated into children throughout their 12 years in public education (government schools). The New Left has succeeded where the Old Left failed. Now we are taught egalitarian ideas that destroy the standards of value of capitalism. As a result, our culture is changing. State power is growing and freedom is disappearing.
The growth of the state is never done explicitly, never with clarity. It is always done in a kind of fog. Statists do not discuss their ultimate purpose, but stop at altruism. "It is our duty to help the weak," they announce as they pass new regulations strangling corporations, violating property rights and stealing wealth.
Statists are wise to focus their arguments on altruism, because it is the ethics of religion. This morality is already accepted by most Americans. When New Leftists expand the state in the name of altruism, their religionist opponents are disarmed.
The New Left is so successful that it not only steers the Democrat Party, but its premises have penetrated deep into the Republican Party. John McCain, the presumptive nominee for President from the Republican Party, talks about expanding "national service" and "taking on" industry.
John McCain promises to "reform" Wall Street. This will mean an expansion of government intervention in the economy. When Democrats promise anything so bold, conservatives scream that their opponents are socialists and a threat to freedom. The Republicans' own candidate is just such a threat to freedom.
The ideas of the New Left are so widely accepted and so uncontroversial, sitting as they do on 2,000 years of Christian morality in the west, that they go unnoticed like the air we breathe. For the ignorant masses educated in public schools, seeing the New Left is as hard as describing the taste of water. It's just there like a metaphysical fact of nature. Marxism never came close to such success.
Stooping A Little Lower
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogOne of the most significant (and depressing) political trends of the last few decades has been the left's abandoning of reason and adopting lies and character assassination to defeat opponents. They have taken a big step toward totalitarianism. Those who no longer respect the truth are capable of anything.
Today we learn that some leftists, at least, consider expanding smears and intimidation not just to politicians but to Republican donors.
Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding “warning” letter in the mail next week.
The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.
Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions. …
The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.
As Captain Ed comments, this will backfire. Big time. Republicans are not primarily motivated by love of their candidates -- certainly they have little love of McCain -- but by fear and loathing of the Democrats. This letter will feed that fear and loathing, and justly so.
This is the kind of thing that made me predict that in the end Republicans will fall behind their candidate. They will vote for McCain even though they dislike him because they hate the left. If the Democrats were smart they would stay away from all lies, smears and brownshirt intimidation tactics -- all of which people like Hugh Hewitt use to whip up anger on the right and motivate the base. Apparently, leftists can't help themselves: they just have to release their inner thug.
Airtight
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog[Originally posted to Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government.]
In a totalitarian society, individuals lack any kind of private life. Individuals are only a means to the end of society, everything -- from one's purchases to one's friendships -- is the province of the state.
That same totalitarian impulse is present in American churches today, as illustrated by this news story on a pastor's prophetic sermons:
Last Sunday, pastor Irwin Alton, 62, preached against several specific sins during his sermon. Some people in the audience gasped with recognition. "When he talked about skipping mid-week service to go to the lake, and buying a new boat when you haven't tithed, I felt nailed to my pew," said one man. "It was like the Holy Spirit was speaking right to me."Liriodendron quotes a portion of that article, then writes the following:
But it wasn't the Holy Spirit -- it was the man's own blog where he had posted photos of himself and his buddies on his new boat on a Wednesday evening.
Pastor Alton, who cultivates a reputation as a computer illiterate techno-phobe, is actually an avid reader of MySpace pages, blogs and personal websites of the people in his congregation. "I appear, shall we say, un-hip," he says. "Therein lies my advantage."
Though he publicly refers to the Worldwide Web as the "Worldwide Waste" and e-mail as "sin-mail," in his home office is a bank of computer screens with more than 170 bookmarked sites -- personal web pages, blogs, Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Digg, Flickr and more. Each week Alton surfs the sites for hours to find evidence of questionable behavior by people in his church. He jots offenses down and incorporates them into his Sunday sermons.
He even checks the blogs of friends of people in his church. That's where he found photos of Emily Dotson, 31, at a local sports bar. During the service last week Alton paused mid-sermon to say, "Some of you have been visiting places you shouldn't be seen in as a Christian, drinking establishments and the like." Emily was taken aback.
"He was speaking right to me," she says. She came forward and repented for being at the sports bar, even though she'd been celebrating a girlfriend's birthday. "I knew I shouldn't have lingered in that environment," Emily says. "I could have gone in, said hi and left."
As for my own personal experience, I spent one year in a church that was dangerously close to Pastor Alton's. Right after college, I accepted a teaching position in a private Christian school in south Florida in order to take a year off from my education. In my incredible naivete, I assumed that the school would be as free-thinking as my Christian college had been, and I was assured that I would be able to teach evolution. Nevertheless, the school that I taught at was incorporated along with the church. As a condition of our employment, we were required to attend church weekly, "voluntarily" tithe 10% of our pre-tax income to the church, and serve on at least one church charity or ministry project. As someone who accepted the premise of altruism [at the time], I had no problem with these rules.If Christians choose to live in such personal confinement within the bounds of their own church, that's their right. However, they have no right to use government force to herd the rest of us into a such confinement via controls on obscenity, drinking, drugs, blasphemy, abortion, birth control, homosexuality, dress, and the like.
My students got a good dose of actual education about evolution, but not without some parents discussing this matter with the administration. It became apparent that I was only to teach evolution from the standpoint of exposing its supposed fallacies. My most important lesson was learning what a consistently Christian life was all about. If your life is lived consistently according to religious values rather than your own implicit values, it becomes an agonizing web of deceit and dishonesty -- both with oneself and others. It was the worst, most stressful year of my life. There were several aspects of my personal life that I kept very secret, dreading the day when some church member might find out about it. One day I was confronted by the school/church administration for using the word "crap" in my classroom -- a student had reported that. I can't possibly hope to communicate with others who think Christianity is benign how oppressive a consistently Christian life is. It is something you must experience for yourself.
For those of us who reject Christian morality -- who regard Christian values of faith, sacrifice, suffering, and submission as positively immoral -- such a life would be intolerable. That's precisely why I formed the Coalition for Secular Government: I do not wish to attempt to eek out an existence in an airtight Christian world.
The “Sensitivity” Syndrome
By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlogThere is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged!…It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry peace, peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! – Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
Yes, the war declared by the Islamists on the West began years ago – nay, decades ago – but gentlemen raised on Western pragmatism and multiculturalism continue to cry peace, peace, even though the clash has caused tens of thousands of deaths and incalculable destruction – but no echo of resounding arms. The enemy will be content only with the peace of our submission and slavery, and are exploiting the multiculturalism that has forged the chains being fitted onto men’s minds.
The second definition of syndrome, in The American Heritage Dictionary, is that it is “a group of signs and symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease, psychological disorder, or other abnormal condition.” The three ingredients of what could be called the “sensitivity” syndrome include pragmatism, multiculturalism and fear. It is a syndrome not conducive to conducting business or exercising one’s freedom of speech, if one refrains from taking certain actions for fear of hurting the feelings of unknown persons who may or may not retaliate with violence. In this instance, the syndrome is indicative of de facto censorship.
The Random House decision in May to cancel the publication of Sherry Jones’ novel, The Jewel of Medina, about Mohammad’s child bride, Aisha, represents two developments fatal to the First Amendment and the future of freedom of speech: it is a capitulation to the “cautionary advice” that the novel might be considered “offensive” to Muslims and possibly spark a wave of violent “protest” similar to that which followed the publication of the Danish Mohammad cartoons in 2005; and it is an implicit injunction against other publishers banning the publication of any literary work that depicts Mohammad.
The Belfast Telegraph (“Next ‘Satanic Verses’ is shelved for fear of stirring up Islamic extremists”) and other newspapers reported on August 9 (from a Reuters report of August 7) that:
“Random House deputy publisher Thomas Perry said in a statement the company received ‘cautionary advice not only that the publication of his book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.’”
Like the other newspapers, the Telegraph did not fully quote Perry. The complete statement, carried in The Wall Street Journal article of August 6, “You Still Can’t Write About Muhammad,” reads that Random House received the “cautionary advice” from “credible and unrelated sources.”
“We decided,” went the Random House press release, “after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel.”
The sources are certainly “credible” but hardly “unrelated,” as will be discussed below. And the “small, radical segment” of Muslims is nothing less than a large band of killers, extortionists and fifth columnists funded by organizations with financial links to Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Islamic regimes.
The irony of Random House’s decision is that the novel apparently does not paint Mohammad in critical terms. “I have deliberately and consciously written respectfully about Islam and Mohammad,” said Jones. “I envisioned that my book would be a bridge-builder.”
A “bridge-builder”? To connect what? The Western value of individualism and a separation of church and state, and the Eastern value of mysticism and the union of religion and state? Kipling was right. Fundamentally, the twain between East and West can never meet – unless one capitulates to the other by abandoning or surrendering its values.
The Belfast Telegraph wrote that:
“The novel traces the life of Aisha from her engagement to Mohammad, when she was six, until the Prophet’s death.”
Jones said, “They did have a great love story. [!!!] He died with his head on her breast.”
The Telegraph said that Jones, “who has never visited the Middle East, spent several years studying Arab history. The novel, she says, is a synthesis of all she had learnt.” Which was, in essence, absolutely nothing about Islam and how it is, by its nature, virulently obsessed with global conquest. Jones apparently had no objection to a barbarian raping a six – or nine-year-old girl, and the “love story” she novelized was woven from whole cloth.
The Wall Street Journal opinion piece, written by Muslim Asra Q. Nomani, even contains an excerpt from Aisha’s wedding night: “The pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion’s sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life.”
All nine years? That kind of writing should have appeared in a Harlequin Romance style bodice-ripper that celebrated pedophilia and child molestation. But, under the imprint of a major publisher, Ballantine, a subsidiary of Random House?
But Jones’ ignorance of and naiveté about Islam and the publisher’s tastelessness are irrelevant. Random House ought to have been free to publish her novel without fear of consequence, except for the probable loss of its investment in the book. (Jones received a $100,000 advance for that title and a sequel.) More likely than making waves as a literary work, it would have been lost in the swamp of undifferentiated fiction that publishers gurgitate every year. Muslims who might have objected to it – their “sensitivities” or feelings having been abused – might not have even become aware of its existence.
The New York Times, once a champion of freedom of speech but now a yeah-sayer in political correctness and “sensitivity,” merely noted the development in a one-paragraph article on August 9, “Random House Cancels Novel with Islamic Themes.”
“Carol Schneider, a spokeswoman for Random House, said on Friday that the company ‘requested that it be postponed indefinitely’ after consulting with experts and receiving unsolicited advice. ‘We thought it was not a good time, with tensions running as high as they do, to publish this,’ Ms. Schneider said.”
No, Muslims might have remained oblivious to the novel’s existence, but for Denise A. Spellberg, associate professor of history and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. According to most of the newspaper and wire service reports, it was she who unleashed the dogs of fear.
Having been sent an advance copy of The Jewel of Medina by Random House, in hopes of her writing a jacket blurb endorsing the novel, Spellberg's first action after reading it was to call a Muslim and guest lecturer in Spellberg’s classes, Shahed Amanullah, to warn him about the book because, she said, according to the WSJ article, the novel “made fun of Muslims and their history” and that she found the novel “incredibly offensive.” Amanullah subsequently emailed other Muslims about the book, even though he had not read it and was taking her word for it.
The next day Spellberg called Random House/Knopf editor Jane Garrett with dire warnings about the consequences of publishing the book, calling its scheduled publication a “declaration of war,” a “national security issue,” and claiming that the novel was “far more controversial than [Salman Rushdie’s] The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoons.” How anyone could imagine that Jones’ novel could have been any of those things is only a clue to the inflated importance Spellberg must place on her role in “building bridges,” multiculturalist “bridges” which she would not want to see burned in defense of someone else’s freedom of speech. (And this is one example of how multiculturalism is anti-Western and a destroyer.)
It is not so curious that, having first alerted the Muslim grapevine about the book – surely with the knowledge that some “extremist” or “radicalized” Muslims just might want to conspire to bomb Random House’s offices or set up picket lines outside of them or murder Jones in “protest” of the novel – Spellberg then warned the publisher of those very dangers. This is tantamount to setting a fire in a crowded theater, then shouting "Fire!" Draw your own conclusions about her motivation, but whatever the conclusion, her actions were contemptible.
Random House’s executives and editors, “sensitive” to these dangers, some two weeks later terminated Jones’ publishing contract, freeing her shop the novel with other publishers. This “sensitivity” was not a reflection of their “respect” for Islam and Muslims, but of their fear of violence and even possible lawsuits.
In a letter to the WSJ on August 9, “I Didn’t Kill ‘The Jewel of Medina,’” Spellberg accuses Nomani of “falsely” asserting that she was the “instigator” behind Random House’s decision, blithely forgetting that but for her actions, no one would have paid any serious attention to Jones’ novel.
In her letter, Spellberg asserts that as an “expert on Aisha’s life, I felt it was my professional responsibility to counter this novel’s fallacious representation of a very real woman’s life.” How could she be an “expert” on the life of a figure who may or may not have existed? Islam’s “history” is no more credible or factually based than is Christianity’s, completely absent of proof, relying mostly on tongue-in-cheek episodes invented by theologians and scribes for the sake of the gullible and the credulous. Spellberg is as much an “authority” on Aisha as Sherry Jones.
Spellberg further claims in her letter that she does not “espouse censorship of any kind, but I do value my right to critique those who abuse the past without regard for its richness or resonance in the present.” But the kind of censorship she instigated was a cabal whose specific purpose was to stop the publication of a book with which she disagreed. Instead, she lays blame for the decision – one with which she agrees – entirely on the doorstep of Random House.
One is at a loss to fault Random House for caving in to the hypothetical dangers of publishing Jones’ novel. Weighing the possible expenses of fortifying its business offices against Muslim terrorists and protecting the lives of anyone connected with Jones’ novel – certainly an abnormal condition of existence – one can hardly blame the publisher for its decision. What is regarded as “normal” today is a perceived necessity to defer to the threat of harassment or physical force.
After all, Random House has been paying taxes to our government to protect it from domestic criminals and foreign invaders – to ensure its enjoyment of the First Amendment without risk of molestation by any party, religious, “offended” or otherwise – a task which, vis-à-vis Islamists, our government has not performed with a shred of effectiveness.
Where would we be today if men were “sensitive” to the tensions that led to Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill, and decided it “was not a good time” to take a stand? There were men like that in 18th century America, but fortunately their “cautionary advice” was ignored. The “sensitivity” syndrome has made modern Americans insensible to what they have been surrendering and giving up.
The gales have been sweeping from the north for over a generation, but today’s gentlemen either ignore them or do not notice them.
August 8, 2008
Values of Harry Potter
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogI'm delighted to announce that Ari Armstrong's book Values of Harry Potter is now available for purchase. I read an advance copy of the book last month. I loved it. Here's my official endorsement of it.
I've read all the Harry Potter novels multiple times, discussed them at length with friends, read essays analyzing them, and even published an essay of my own. Yet Ari Armstrong's Values of Harry Potter offered me a delightful array of fresh insights into J. K. Rowling's works. It offers fans of Harry Potter a unique opportunity to explore the core values of the novels, to discover why we find them so captivating and so inspiring. Readers will develop a deeper appreciation for Rowling's achievement in portraying life-loving, courageous heroes. They will discover compelling answers to any half-formed questions and doubts about the significance of her Christian themes. When I re-read the Harry Potter series -- as I'm eager to do again -- I will gain far more insight and inspiration from them than ever before, thanks to Values of Harry Potter.For a bit of a taste of the actual item, Ari has posted a PDF with extracts of the book on his web site.
I recommend the book to all fans of Harry Potter, but particularly to people interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. You'll find much of interest in it -- much that you didn't notice on a first or second or third reading of the books. So go order your copy now!
The Ponies Made Me Do It
By noreply@blogger.com (Dan Edge) from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlogFrom The Undercurrent Blog:
Former NBA official Tim Donaghy was sentenced to 15 months in prison last week for gambling on NBA games, some of which he himself officiated. The interesting thing about this case is not the question of whether or not the defendant was guilty. This was not a “whodunit?” case; Donaghy openly admitted his guilt at the trial. The interesting thing was his argument for why he should not go to prison.
Donaghy’s defense: he is a gambling “addict.” In a statement filed in a Brooklyn court, treatment counselor Stephen Block said Donaghy “could not stop himself from gambling.” (See here.) According to Block, gambling is an “illness,” a “hidden disease” which compels its victim to break the law against his will. This kind of testimony was the cornerstone of Donaghy’s defense.
This view is very widespread, and is not limited to gambling. Drug abusers, alcoholics, porn fanatics, and wife-beaters all claim that their self-destructive behavior is a result of forces beyond their control.
Whatever the facts of this particular case, being an addict does not exempt a person from the law because an addict still chooses his actions.
Consider a pedophile who is sexually attracted to young children and abuses children by acting on his attraction. Whatever the cause of his desire, there is nothing inherent in the desire that necessitates his acting on it. Whatever psychological obstacles—and they may be significant—such a man has to overcome to rehabilitate his desire, he still retains the choice of whether to act on it or not.
No matter what a man’s habits or emotional state (leaving aside the truly insane), he is always capable of making a choice. The desire to commit self-destructive acts does not compel one to act. Desires can only rule the man who allows emotions to dictate his life.
--Dan Edge
Animal Rights Activists Are Not Pro-Animal, They Are Anti-Human
By Keith Lockitch from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
Animal Rights Activists Are Not Pro-Animal, They Are Anti-Human
August 7, 2008
Irvine, CA--Last Saturday, animal rights activists used firebombs to attack two UC Santa Cruz biologists--exploding the car of one scientist, who was not present, while bombing the townhouse of another, who sustained minor injuries while fleeing with his wife and two small children.
"This sort of attack is shocking and reprehensible, but unfortunately it is not surprising," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "It is not surprising when supporters of animal 'rights' use violence and intimidation, because their cause is fundamentally anti-human."
"Animal activists claim that their goal is to stop gratuitous torture inflicted for no reason. But that is a smokescreen. They fight against such benign practices as keeping animals in circuses and zoos, or even as pets--no matter how well-loved and well-cared-for they are. Worst of all, they oppose the use of animals in research, no matter how humanely they are treated and no matter how many lives could be saved from the medical advances this makes possible.
"All of this is based on the false notion that animals have 'rights.' But the concept of 'rights' properly only applies to rational beings, who can recognize and respect the rights of others. In the name of the imagined 'rights' of animals, they have no hesitation about assaulting the actual rights of individual people.
"It is a mistake to regard these criminals as 'extremists' who are hijacking an otherwise valid cause. It is the cause of animal 'rights,' itself, that is vicious and anti-human."
### ### ###
Dr. Lockitch has a PhD in Physics from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. He writes and edits for ARI and is a professor in the Objectivist Academic Center, where he teaches undergraduate writing and a graduate course on the history of physics. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register and the San Francisco Chronicle.
Dr. Keith Lockitch is available for interviews. To book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
800-365-6552 ext. 213 (office)
949-838-5137 (cell)
larryb@aynrand.org
For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."
RSS
August 7, 2008
Art Deco Galore
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogOne job fair down. One to go. Some emailing to do. People to meet. Dismuke to the rescue with material for a quick post! (He's been fairly active lately, so stop by there if you haven't in awhile.)
Pursuant to yesterday's post on an art deco building that houses a Sears -- and could well serve as a metaphor for the current state of its whole business -- Dismuke pointed to a YouTube video excerpt from a British movie "that just oozes with art deco". Elaborating further, he says:
The set designs are a fun little visual reminder of a time when the word "modern" had positive aesthetic connotations of excitement, elegance, grandeur and glamor. Outside the realm of technological advances, the term "modern" in the context of today's culture has become a dreaded and almost dirty word for rational people with standards and good taste. It is a term that has increasingly become synonymous with the worst sort of nihilism - which, of course, is completely incompatible with and looks down on excitement, elegance, grandeur and glamor.Later in the day, he emailed me a link to a site about art deco architecture in Houston filled with examples of the architecture of that time (indexed by decade), including a better shot of the same Sears building. Even laundries and gas stations could be handsome buildings back then!
I love the site, but find that I may have to purchase the book it advertises used, if I decide to do so. Why? Because it is being published by (and will likely fund) an organization that, in the name of preserving a few old buildings, is advocating public policies that are exactly the opposite of what made these buildings possible in the first place -- or will permit them (or something even better) to return in force one day:
GHPA [The Greater Houston Preservation Alliance] works with Houston City Council, the Houston Archeological and Historical Commission, the Houston Planning Commission, the City of Houston Planning and Development Department and other public entities to promote historic preservation in public policy.This may sound inoffensive and harmless -- until one considers the only possible meaning of "working with" the government to "promote historic preservation as public policy." (For the record, Dismuke was not advocating preservation as "public policy".)
The government is the sole social institution that can legally use force against ordinary citizens. The proper function of this institution is to protect individual rights (which include the right to property), but the government is increasingly being used for anything but that today. In this case, the "dictator fantasy" peculiar to the preservationists is that they will succeed in forcing people to abide by their standards of what constitutes a building worth preserving.
So they short-sightedly support and attempt to pass legislation that will make it impossible for property owners to use their own land and buildings as they see fit. A short look at their own link to the Sears building immediately demonstrates the foolhardiness of this approach!
In the 1960s, Sears "updated" the store with aluminum siding and bricked the ground-floor display windows. Rice University now owns the property and leases the building to Sears. The store is threatened by the proposed construction of a Metro transit center. [bold added]While it is true that the property's original owner vandalized it himself, much of its original grandeur could still be reclaimed easily.
So, if your goal is to preserve beautiful architecture, which way could best insure that such a property is brought back, if ever? Insisting on (and working for) a return of full government protection of property rights and raising funds to buy and restore it? Or entrusting the government with its protection, when it may decide -- as it has here -- that some undefinable "common good" outweighs the architectural value of this building and that it should therefore be demolished? If the government were in the business of consistently protecting such individual rights as private property, this kind of "endangerment" would be taken completely off the table. Furthermore, while efforts to save an individual building here or there would inevitably fail, we would be free to protect or build as many others as we like.
Brian Phillips, commenting on the American Planning Association, an organization that may or may not be tied to the GHPA, sounds a similar note to mine regarding their agenda of enforcing what it hopes is an enduring, popular consensus on everyone at the point of a government gun:
Consider the results if Thomas Edison had suspended his own judgment and submitted his ideas to a vote. His genius would be subject to the whims and decisions of others, including the ignorant and ill-informed. The truth that he saw was not seen by others, and had he left the decision to them, the world would have remained in self-imposed darkness.If one really cares about returning to an age of excitement and glamor, he will work to bring about constructive cultural change -- for example, by persuading rational minds that architecture needn't and shouldn't be ugly or boring -- as well as working to bring back the political freedom of capitalism that made such an age possible in the first place, and will make an even better age possible in the future.
-- CAV
A Glorious Summer Vacation: Congress on Standby
By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogLet us take a moment of silence and just give thanks for our good fortune: Congress is finally out of session for the summer.
The big news is that Congress failed to "deal" with the gasoline crisis. Oh, drat.
Now the country is in really big danger because Congress couldn't save us from those evil, greedy, soul-sucking oil companies who somehow discovered how to pipe up all that muck of old dinosaur bones. You know, that "black gold"..."Texas tea" the liberals will need to transport themselves to the Democratic National Convention, and that stuff even the green-loving Pope uses to run the Popemobile.
So, just what did Congress do? Well, between the House and Senate, they managed to craft 7,192 bills. According to GovTrack.us, there are over 10,000 bills introduced during each 2-year Congressional term, and in 2008 17 bills became law.
(Busy little bees, weren't they?)
Check out these websites to see what bills are still being processed in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House. And that doesn't even count what's going on at the state level.
I warn you though, prepare yourself for a dizzying experience that must resemble the overwhelming suffocation of getting caught in an avalanche. The sheer volume and breadth of issues being addressed by Congress is smothering.
But they seem to have no problem with it. Does this bother any of you, by chance? Should we have the kind of social system in which our government hyper-super-micro-ultra-manages our lives?
What should be a proper social system? Ayn Rand, the famous novelist and philosopher, says the following:
A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Is the power of society limited or unlimited?When Congress returns, they will continue their inexorable, frenetic push towards a collectivist society---structured not on the basis of rational principles, but according to a massively tangled and matted web of laws and regulations.
Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.
Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes.
So, I wish the members of Congress a long and lovely summer break. Maybe they could relax with nice summer afternoon naps. Perhaps a little gardening in the early morning while it's still cool would be invigorating and refreshing.
Or how about those Congressional members catching up on some reading with a really good book--an epic novel of our times written over 50 years ago: "Atlas Shrugged."
Objectivist Round Up # 56 - August 7, 2008
By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlogWelcome to the August 7, 2008 edition of the Objectivist Round-Up--it's again our pleasure to be hosting this week's edition. This 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.So without any further delay (and in no particular order), here's this week's round-up:
"About the Author," Atlas Shrugged, Appendix.
Edward Cline presents Towards a Culture of Reason posted at The Rule of Reason, saying "The question arose recently among some bloggers: Of all the arts, is fiction writing the most difficult career to pursue?"
Myrhaf presents 10 Reasons Obama Might Not Be Such a Bad President posted at Myrhaf.
Ryan Puzycki presents Mixed Economy, Decisively Bad Results posted at The Undercurrent.
Burgess Laughlin presents What is in-line activism? posted at Making Progress, saying, "The most potent form of intellectual activism may be activism that is a direct application of one's passionately held central purpose in life. This post gives an example."
Paul McKeever presents Atlas Shrugged, Freedom, and the Reincarnation of Whitaker Chambers posted at Paul McKeever, saying, "This is my response to a recent straw-manning/smear of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Atlas Shrugged."
Tom Stelene presents Delusions posted at Al-Kafir Akbar!.
Rituparna Basu presents Science and Faith: Enemies posted at The UndercurrentRituparna discusses the relationship between science and faith, showing how the two necessarily come into conflict."
Roderick Fitts presents Closed System vs. Open System: Why the Open System Fails (Part 1 of 5) posted at University of Michigan Students of Objectivism, saying, "Here is my five-part series criticizing David Kelley's views on the open system interpretation of Objectivism, explaining why the open system in general is mistaken, and dispeling some misunderstandings of the closed system espoused by Leonard Peikoff."
Dan Edge presents The Ponies Made Me Do It posted at The Undercurrent. Dan discusses NBA official Tim Donaghy's recent felony conspiracy conviction for betting on games he refereed and his counselor's defense: the claim that gambling is “hidden disease” which compels its victims to act against their wills."
K. M. presents Mehta Couple's Abortion Case posted at Applying philosophy to life, saying, "Regarding a sad case where the Bombay High Court rejected a couple's plea to permit abortion"
Diana Hsieh presents Our Secular Constitution posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Three passages of the US Constitution make clear that the Founders intended their new government to be independent of any religion"
Ari Armstrong presents Massage Licensing Rubs Special Interests posted at FreeColorado.com, saying, "Colorado massage therapists now must register with the state. Does this protect consumers -- or just special interests?"
C. August presents Wal-Mart in Honduras: A Capitalist Success Story posted at Titanic Deck Chairs, saying, "In a shocking discovery, NPR realizes that capitalism, via Wal-Mart, actually benefits poor farmers in developing nations."
Adam Reed presents Born to Identify posted at Born to Identify.
Paul Hsieh presents Who Has The Wealth? posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Why are some countries more prosperous than others? And how is their wealth related to their basic ideas and values?"
That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of objectivist round up (to be hosted by Titanic Deck Chairs) 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.
August 6, 2008
The Essential Difference
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogFor anyone still wondering about the difference between the Ayn Rand Institute and The Atlas Society, I offer the following two video interviews by UFM.edu:
- David Kelley, Founder, Senior Fellow, and former Executive Director of The Atlas Society
- Yaron Brook, President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute
The interviewer is the same in both interviews. The questions are quite similar. Yet the interviews couldn't be more different.
Yaron Brook is clear and direct. With every question, he immediately hones in on the fundamental, often a crucial moral point. He clearly conveys the importance of the ideas he's espousing, and his confidence in the truth of his answers. He knows his stuff, and he makes us eager to hear more.
David Kelley wanders and stammers in his answers. He is routinely lost in his own pointless digressions and qualifications. He speaks in terms of his own beliefs, not in terms of the truth. He displays no facility with the answers to these basic questions, nor passion for what he's saying. It's painful to watch.
(David is much, much worse in this interview than I ever remember him. It seems that his commitment to a subjectivist approach to ideas, Objectivism in particular, continues to take its toll on him.)
The difference between the two interviews is so great that even I'm shocked. Yet it's so perfectly representative of the moral and epistemological gulf between the two organizations. And that's why I'm such an ardent supporter of the the Ayn Rand Institute, particularly under the guidance of Yaron Brook.
Charles Munger
By softwareNerd from Software Nerd,cross-posted by MetaBlogI am a fan of Warren Buffett, despite his awful views on political science.
Buffett's business partner is the lesser-known Charles Munger. He has better political views than Buffett. However, like Buffett, he is a very steady, rational and thoughtful person. Here is a long (1;45 hrs) video of Munger giving a talk at Caltech, for anyone who is curious as to what it might take to be one of the richest men in the world.
Quick Roundup 351
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogEscape from Edouard Update
The tropical storm I was following -- starting the Sunday evening before an early Tuesday flight -- never intensified.
But its wind field grew Monday evening, and I had some concern that winds at the airport would keep me grounded after all. Luckily for me, the thing hooked to the right before making landfall, and I was able to leave.
But preparations ate up a lot more of my time than I expected, hence this morning's short post. Blame lack of sleep yesterday and Too Much Stuff Left to Do this morning.
Summer 2008 TOS
If I weren't so busy lately, I'd have read this issue of The Objective Standard in the same way that Gideon Reich, who reviewed it, did. But I was, and since I knew I'd be flying to Boston soon, I allowed myself to read the book reviews, which I really enjoyed, and then set the rest of it aside until yesterday's flight.
My capsule review: Damned good from beginning to end! I particularly recommend "Property Rights and the Crisis of the Electric Grid" by Raymond C. Niles, which I'd been looking forward to for some time. That article is available online, so if you don't subscribe, read it there and remember that you could get three articles of the same quality each quarter for the price of less than two movie tickets per issue.
Even if Hollywood could still reliably produce great movies, that would be a bargain!
Etiquette is contextual.
If ethics is practical, absolute, and contextual -- and I agree with Ayn Rand that it is -- then so is its application to daily social interactions, etiquette, as Andrew Dalton indicates after encountering some individuals who expect there to be no criticism of Alexander Solzhenitsyn upon his death.
Now, as a guide to etiquette, in a properly delimited context, such an injunction ["Do not speak ill of the dead."] has some merit. Such a context would be when speaking in the presence of family and friends of the deceased, or when his faults were confined to his private life. In that case, trumpeting the dead person's moral shortcomings would be an act of spite with little or no rational purpose.And it is worse than merely rude to allow such to go unchallenged, given the greater context of the real-world consequences collectivism visits upon its victims, be they adherents of collectivism themselves or their victims.
However, Solzhenitsyn was a public figure, and his often-criticized religious and nationalist views were part of his publicly expressed philosophy. It is dogmatic and insane to insist that these views should not be criticized on a political/legal blog simply because Solzhenitsyn recently died.
Based on My Last Visit, I Think Not
A few stops down the tram line from where I work is a Sears location I would use to buy Lands End shirts from time to time after the catalog retailer was acquired by the venerable department store chain.
Hoping to replace a couple of shirts before leaving town Tuesday, I went down there, only to find that there was nothing in the racks from Lands End, and that everything else they had was a far cry from the business casual level I was shooting for. I left empty-handed.
The store, pictured at right in its former glory, is now an eyesore, and looks increasingly out of place in the neighborhood which is regentrifying around it -- and would send shoppers there if they'd only offer better merchandise.
So it was with jaw dropping just before my flight that I saw a teaser on the front page of the Houston Chronicle to the effect that behind its present rusting, corrugated facade hides an art deco delight! Unfortunately, I lost that section of the paper at some point during my rush to make the flight, so I'm linking to the story now. (And, on the paper's past advice, reproducing lots of the story since it likes yanking days-old content from the web.)
Sears' tan metal siding, blotched with graffiti cover-up, gives the building's upper floors the beaten-down air of an aging ministorage unit. But even that beats the urban battle fortifications at ground level.I have been told before that during that period, this kind of ugliness was strongly associated with modernization. The idea that progress in aesthetics is the same thing as a utilitarian stripping-away of all decoration and ornament -- specifically that reason is incompatible with a pleasant aesthetic -- is both a manifestation of the mind-body dichotomy and a bastard offspring of the aesthetics of modern philosophy and the admiration of technology peculiar to America. The latter is made possible by the massive philosophical confusion rampant in our modern culture.
Someone, it appears, worked hard to make the department store defensible, able to repel invading hordes of shoppers intoxicated by Vanessa Hudgens' back-to-school ads. At the Wheeler side of the building, two sets of glass double doors, blacked out and locked during business hours, present an ominous face to the street. Opaque gray film makes the official entrance's glass doors, facing Main, only a little less scary. Bricks fill almost all the former display windows; burglar bars and more of that gray film cover the plate glass that survived. Only the most intrepid seekers of Kenmore appliances would dare breach such a bulwark.
...
The strange thing? Sears' unsightly fortifications hide a gorgeous Art Deco building, a store that, in its day, marked the height of luxury.
In 1939, when the Main Street Sears opened, Main at Wheeler seemed a world away from downtown, where all of Houston's other major department stores clustered. To lure shoppers away from their accustomed haunts, the chain created a store that the Houston Chronicle called "one of the finest in the South or Southwest."
Sears ponied up what was serious money during the Great Depression: $330,000 for a block and a half of property, as well as a cool $1 million to build the store itself. To design the store, the chain hired Nimmons, Carr & Wright, a Chicago firm, as well as A.C. Finn, a Houston architect known for his commercial buildings.
They designed the building around three features now so commonplace that it's hard to imagine a time when they seemed notable. First was the idea that outside of downtown, shoppers would arrive in cars, and that those cars must be accommodated. Next to the store, Sears operated its own gas station. And even more notably, the store provided an enormous parking lot. Across Main Street from the store, it could hold 600 cars, a number then considered enormous. Lighting that parking lot at night counted as a separate novelty.
...
So what on earth happened to that poor building?
It's hard to say what, exactly, the store's general manager was thinking in 1962, when he proudly announced a "modernization." The building's interior and exterior, he told the Chronicle proudly, "are to be completely and radically changed." [minor edits]
Reporter Lisa Gray goes on to note that many art deco features of the building remain, both behind the "space age" (spaced age?) shell and within the interior.
[G]iven the store's location, and the relative ease of restoring it, you hope the chain realizes what it's got. You'd like to think that the old Art Deco Sears hidden underneath that beige metal could return.Based on the direction that their clothing inventory has taken, I think that the answer to the question of whether they know what they've got is, "No."
And not just return. Arrive. [bold added]
Maybe they'll sell to someone who does.
-- CAV
What's Wrong With Obama?
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogAs Obama fades in the polls, people are asking why this is happening. Alex Castellanos, David Brooks, and Classical Values examine Obama's weakness as a candidate.
I believe Obama's problem is that he has miscalculated because of his leftist premises. As a socialist and a postmodernist Obama does not believe that man can know the truth about reality. Instead, people's beliefs are determined by other things. You probably remember a few months ago when Obama said to his fellow leftists in San Francisco,
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
This is a materialistic explanation of values: because of economic hardship people turn to guns, religion, bigotry or protectionism.
Leftists believe Americans labor under a "false consciousness" foisted upon us by greedy capitalists. Corporations keep Americans from seeing the truth that leftists, being special people motivated by altruism instead of greed, can see.
Thus, Obama believes the truth is irrelevant when you're talking to the American people. Obama can say anything, take any position, contradict himself if necessary. The only standard is: will his statement help him gain power?
For months Obama has either been so vague that his words can mean anything or when he has gotten specific, he has been all over the map, backtracking and flip-flopping. People are left wondering, "What does Obama really believe?"
Obama underestimates the American people. More people care about logic and the truth than he thinks. Perhaps he is now learning that if your words are meaningless long enough -- if your statements are not firmly tied to reality -- people stop listening.
How ironic it is that a man who won the Democrat nomination by appealing to voters' idealism has been undone so far by excessive cynicism. His idealism was as empty as his cynicism is rich and full to the brim.
Who Has The Wealth?
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogMegan McArdle has written an interesting analysis of the following map showing GDP per capita in various countries:
She writes:
When you see the map, it becomes radically apparent just how firmly Britain was the root of the Industrial revolution. With the lone exception of Japan, the darkest places on the map are either next to Britain, or former British colonies. And aside from Saudi Arabia and Chile, all the growth seems to spread outward from those Anglosphere points of infection. Nowhere, not even Saudi Arabia, has the income density of Western Europe and North America.Of course, the interesting question is why is there this distribution?
Dr. William Bernstein (a neurologist turned financial analyst/historian) does a pretty good job of answering this question in his book, The Birth of Plenty : How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created. In particular, he analyzes history and economics over the past 400 years and makes a good case that there were four key factors that allowed men in some countries to prosper, whereas men in other countries couldn't. The four key factors he identifies are: "property rights, the scientific method, capital markets and communications". He argues that countries prospered to the extent that these factors were present. And in particular, when Great Britain embraced all four of these, it then led to the explosion of wealth known as the Industrial Revolution.
Although Bernstein's analysis is fairly good, it does not quite go far enough. His four factors can be further essentialized to two: reason and rights.
His first factor, "property rights", is self-explanatory. Property rights is the direct application of the concept of rights to humans living in a material world. It is a recognition that if men are to live, they must live under a government which respects and enforces certain principles with respect to how men should deal with physical objects, and with other men. In particular, it establishes objective principles of property ownership, and all of the corollaries (e.g., the right to use, sell, trade, dispose of, and exclude others from one's property.)
His second factor, "the scientific method", is the application of reason to the practical world -- namely, using man's mind to understand the nature of reality and the causal factors that allow men to shape the world for their purposes.
The third factor, "capital markets", is an extension of property rights into the realm of finance. When men have confidence that their property rights will be respected in the long term under an objective rule of law, they are able to devise increasingly complex contracts to suit their financial needs, with terms involving time intervals that could span months, if not years. Men could create financial instruments that permit them to engage in lending, insurance, futures and options. Similarly, the birth of the limited liability corporation and the associated rise of stock markets greatly facilitated the ability of investors to shift their capital to ventures that could yield the greatest return, allowing both investors and producers to create and execute long-range plans over a period of years, if not decades.
The fourth factor, "communications", is the practical outgrowth of both reason and property rights. Even the apparently simple task of guaranteeing the safety of roads for travel and commerce required a government able to protect individual rights from thieves and highwaymen. More sophisticated forms of communications and transport, such as the telegraph and railroads, became possible only as men's reasoning minds created the necessary technology in a context where they could be turned into viable businesses under the protection of a government that respected property rights.
All of these factors were mutually reinforcing, in that the respect for rights and reason created prosperity which allowed for more innovations in science, technology, capital markets and communications, which led to more prosperity, etc. But the roots of this prosperity were ultimately philosophical. Without a proper understanding of rights, grounded in a philosophy of reason, none of the prosperity of the Anglosphere would have been possible.
Therefore, it is no coincidence that the GDP map tracks closely with countries that still respect reason and rights, which tracks closely with the Anglosphere. The prosperity of modern-day Japan follows from the sweeping cultural and political changes imposed on that country during the American occupation following World War II, and some regard it as a part of the "Anglosphere" in that sense.
(Note: William Bernstein is pretty good when it comes to historical discussion, but he is definitely not an advocate of full laissez-faire capitalism. For a more consistent defense of free market capitalism on both philosophical and historical grounds, I'd recommend the book by Andrew Bernstein, The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire. To the best of my knowledge, there is no relation between William Bernstein and Andrew Bernstein.)
Towards a Culture of Reason
By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlogThe question arose recently among some bloggers: Of all the arts, is fiction writing the most difficult career to pursue?
It would be a legitimate question even were we living in a culture of reason, or in a culture dominated by reason, such as that of the 19th century, which by no means was wholly founded on reason. The severity or duration of difficulties encountered by an artist -- be he novelist, playwright, screenwriter, painter, sculptor, composer, or actor - depends on if he is living in a free society or in one that is only semi-free, that is, one governed partly by irrationality.
In a free society, an artist whose implicit or explicit premise is reason would have relatively little difficulty establishing a career, albeit with the caveat that there would be no guarantee of success, just as there is no guarantee that the value of a new invention would enjoy immediate recognition. If he is irrational in such a society, and is an exponent of a school of art similar to the Minimalist or Dadaist, he may find a "following," but deservedly remain on the fringes of that culture.
Conversely, in a partly irrational society, or in one palsied by viral strains of irrationality, as ours is, the irrational artist will more frequently be rewarded with recognition and riches, depending on the culture's fad, fashion or mania of the moment, while the rational artist will struggle with little hope of making a life-sustaining, materially rewarding career of his chosen art, and remain relegated to the fringes of that culture.
A completely irrational society would entail government censorship, and the rational artist would disappear altogether, either of his own choice or by government force. Even the pseudo-nonconformist, abstract artists would be suppressed, persecuted or banished, to be replaced by consummate mediocrities or officially approved irrationalists, as happened in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.
For brevity and economy's sake, by "rational artist" is meant here an individual who, in his work, respects and addresses the reality-rooted epistemology of the human mind, works on the premise of Aristotle's "ought," and seeks, to the extent of his vision and ability to translate it into an artistic work, to enhance human existence. By "irrational artist" is meant an individual who hates and defies man's reality-rooted epistemology, works on the premise of destruction, and seeks, to the depth of his malevolence, to deprecate or negate the experience of human existence. An irrational artist is fundamentally a nihilist, or an anti-artist. Better known anti-artists, as examples, are Jackson Pollock, Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, and the Dadaists, and in music, Arnold Schoenberg and John Cage.
A great number of fiction writers and other artists, mostly from the 19th and early 20th centuries, fall somewhere on the upper end of a sliding scale between the rational and irrational. For every John Singer Sargent and Daniel Chester French there were numerous minor painters and sculptors who mastered the requisite disciplines of their fields, whose skills and virtuosity were spent on noncontroversial or common subjects and themes, but whose work may still be admired and enjoyed for their clarity, technique and integrity. For every Victor Hugo or Friedrich Schiller, there were many lesser writers whose work can be enjoyed for the same reasons, such as that of O. Henry and Terence Rattigan.
On the far end of the sliding scale is a moldy heap of literature and other arts, which, while not consciously produced by "irrational" artists, can still be deemed trash. It is of the undistinguished kind that can be seen at community art fairs or that is churned out in "workshops" or "creative" writing programs, including "folk art" and kitsch, often commercially available to people with less esthetic sense than prehistoric cavemen and produced by their esthetic inferiors. The men who told stories by painting reindeer and bison on cave walls were true innovators and more respectful of human epistemology than any educated, modern irrational artist, past or present.
Relevant to this discussion is a host of middlemen responsible for promoting the irrational artist: critics, intellectuals, impresarios, teachers, and other exponents of unreason, all of whom, including the irrational artist, are necessarily impervious to any objective criticism of their actions - necessarily because they reject reason. Their usual fallback argument in answer to such criticism is to fault human cognition for not valuing, appreciating or pursuing the irrational. Too often today, however, they do not feel a need to answer such criticism at all, or to justify their actions, because the culture is on their side. They are the "establishment."
Regular readers of this column need not be reminded of the power of government agencies that encourage the formation and perpetuation of such an establishment, such as the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, not to mention their smaller siblings and cousins in every state and municipality of the Union, all supported or "endowed" with revenue looted from taxpayers. For a description of the founding and mechanics of such an establishment, see Ayn Rand's essay, "The Establishing of an Establishment," in Philosophy: Who Needs It. One observation of hers in particular is germane to the subject here, which is the difficulty of any artist, including fiction writers, to advance in his career in especially today's culture:
"Private cliques have always existed in the intellectual field, particularly in the arts, but they used to serve as checks and balances on one another, so that a nonconformist could enter the field and rise without the help of a clique. Today, the cliques are consolidated into an Establishment."So that there are no checks and balances that would allow a nonconformist to enter any field, intellectual or artistic, just a damp, impenetrable, cotton-like barrier of suffocating insouciance that disguises fear and hostility, a barrier that cannot even be objectified in the image of a human face.
All that being said, fiction writing differs from the visual arts in that a writer must create his own world (or selectively recreate reality according to his metaphysical value judgments), whereas a visual artist creates a single static entity (governed by the same method). A painting, which may be of a human figure or a tableau, or a statue of a human figure, will occupy physical space. A novel will occupy one's mind as a set of concretized abstractions (of specific characters, actions, places, and events), and how well and how long they occupy one's consciousness depends on how vividly memorable their venue - the story - is established by their author.
Writing a novel (or a play, screenplay, or short story) requires a personal commitment to a long-range project. This is the chief obstacle which, aside from his lacking the skills needed to accomplish it, stops any person who merely dreams of writing a story or who toys with an idea by taking still-born notes over a period of years, hoping that some magic "inspiration" will suddenly strike and move him to somehow realize his idea. Fiction writing is a purely non-social task, absolutely non-cooperative, an utterly solitary avocation, requiring a passion second only to sex. A fiction writer, as Ayn Rand once noted, is God at the creation of his own world, and such a task requires a nearly selfless dedication, "selfless" in the sense that one's own existence cannot matter until that world is complete.
As one overcomes external difficulties and obstacles, one's writing career must advance up a ladder of one's own making. One may advance, too, up another's ladder, say, that of a critic or a teacher, but that measurement should be wholly incidental and apart from one's concerns. In Rand's The Fountainhead, Howard Roark ascends his own ladder; Peter Keating, having no ladder of his own, rises on Ellsworth Toohey's.
Another difficulty encountered by a fiction writers is that employment in that art does not exist, except perhaps in Hollywood, writing screen treatments and screen plays and the like largely by committee or collaboration. There is nothing that would allow a writer to perfect his craft while earning a living as an apprentice or an intern to someone like Tom Clancy or J.K. Rowling. But then one would just be a hack for a "master," much like the artists who did the detail work for popular painters in the past and finished a "masterpiece" to which the "master" would sign his name.
Fiction writing may be a difficult career, but it is not necessarily the most difficult. A different species of labor exists for every other art form - in painting, sculpting, composing, and acting - but one cannot legitimately compare the various efforts and say that one is harder than the other. If there were any difficulty at all, it would depend on the scale or magnitude of one's artistic ambition and communicating its value to those who may undertake to bring the work to the public. Ayn Rand's legendary conflicts with her agents, editors and publishers over the integrity and marketing of her novels are a case in point. With all due respect to O. Henry, he would not have been able overcome the difficulties Rand encountered in her career. But, then, he did not need to deal with an ossified cultural establishment.
On a personal note, concerning the difficulty of getting one's work "out there," I have had a comparatively easier experience than have other writers and artists, and I think the most difficulties are encountered by visual artists. The visual arts in our culture have arguably sunk beyond sight into a percolating mire of mediocrity, pretentiousness, and worse, farther than has literature,
What difficulties are faced by individuals who aspire to become poets or composers? Why have no new Miltons or Kiplings or Rachmaninovs appeared? The culture just does not encourage such a career path. And here again one should defer to Rand and her introduction to Victor Hugo's Ninety-Three:
"Have you ever wondered what they felt, those first men of the Renaissance, when - emerging from the long nightmare of the Middle Ages, having seen nothing but the deformed monstrosities and gargoyles of medieval art, as the only reflections of man's soul - they took a new, free, unobstructed look at the world and rediscovered the statues of the Greek gods, forgotten under piles of rubble?"The men of the Renaissance undertook to excavate those piles of rubble to more clearly see and appreciate those statues. The men of our time, since the end of the 19th century, are dedicated to not just reburying those statues, but to destroying them so that they are unrecognizable rubble. They want to return to a nightmare worse than that of the Middle Ages, from which no one would emerge but in which all would suffocate. If that is the spirit of our culture, how could anyone be inspired to compose great music or compose great poetry? To celebrate or communicate what? Where is the incentive? In answer to what? To disgust? To revulsion? To madness?
A rational, sane person could not be enticed to master the disciplines of those arts merely to answer the malevolence or dullness or the irrationality that may be the leitmotif of a culture (not unless he is a destroyer or psychotic or just plain dull himself). Most men today would be deaf to a new symphony or epic poem, or indifferent to it. (For more on this subject, see Rand's articles, "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation," in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought by Ayn Rand, and "The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age," in The Romantic Manifesto.) The great composers and poets of the 19th century were imbued with and encouraged by the spirit of Western culture then, and each was moved to answer or echo it in his own way. The last great composer in our time was Rachmaninov, and he was of the 19th century.
In the past, the progression was just the reverse. Michelangelo's "David" can be taken as a symbol of the Renaissance, when men were emerging to take "a new, free, unobstructed look at the world." Literature and music trailed behind, advancing in fits and starts, catching up only in the 19th century. But by then, as Rand so poignantly remarked, it was too late; Kant and his minions, with virtually no opposition or protest, had sabotaged the Aristotelian underpinnings of Western culture. The symbol of our culture today is something that is a combination of what might be a screwdriver welded to a dented car fender, or perhaps a leprous-looking human figure encased in mud. A fictional hero, such as Cyrano de Bergerac or Howard Roark or John Galt, is considered unreal or a fraud.
The only artistic medium that has half a chance of surviving and influencing the culture today (barring censorship) is the novel. It can point the way, just as Ayn Rand's novels have pointed the way, to valuing those other artistic fields and ultimately allowing them to flourish. It is, after all, a philosophical battle, the most difficult battle of all. Novels, because they can dramatize ideas in action, can help to promulgate a philosophy, while the other arts act as a reflection of it and of the culture.
It would be apropos to end this commentary by quoting Ayn Rand from her essay, "What is Romanticism?" in The Romantic Manifesto:
"When reason and philosophy are reborn, literature will be the first phoenix to rise out of today's ashes. And, armed with a code of rational values, aware of its own nature, confident in the supreme importance of its mission, Romanticism will have come of age."
August 5, 2008
Our Secular Constitution
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog[Originally posted to Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government.]
The Christian theocrats are attempting to transform America into a thoroughly Christian nation in her laws, institutions, and mores. They demand that abortion be banned, solely based on their tenuous interpretation of scripture. They vigorously campaign against any attempt to allow loving homosexual couples to secure their bond by law. They demand that all television be prudishly "family-friendly," without a boob or butt in sight.
One of the most common arguments of these theocrats for their coveted religious transformation is based on an appeal to our Founding Fathers. The Founders, they say, were devout Christians seeking to establish a Christian nation. The Founders, they say, never envisioned anything like the secularism of today's society and government.
Most Americans feel some reverence for our Founding Fathers, yet they know little of the actual words and deeds of the men who shaped our country: Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, and others. (Thanks, government schools!) So too many American can be bamboozled by these claims of the theocrats. The snippets so often quoted by Christians to support their case are usually ripped from their proper context, then interpreted through Christian lenses. Any mention of God is read with an endorsement of Christianity and Christian government. The deism of many prominent Founders is ignored, as is their strident opposition to any kind of promotion of religion by the government.
However, the most clear evidence that the Founders intended their new government to be independent of any religion is found in three places in the Constitution:
First, the Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Notice what is missing from that basic statement of purpose: God. Moreover, the Constitution attempts to secure the very kind of this-worldly goods like peace, security, and justice that Jesus admonishes his followers to ignore. And it does not aim to promote the otherworldly goods like the salvation of one's soul that Jesus admonishes his followers to seek above all else.
Second, Article 6:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.So all government officials are required to uphold the Constitution, yet none can be subject to any kind of religious test. They cannot be required to espouse belief in Jesus, nor even belief in God, nor even in some vague Higher Power. Surely, if the Founders wished to create a Christian nation, they would have required that government officials be Christian.
Third, the First Amendment :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.The First Amendment forbids the government from interfering in people's religious lives, whether by forbidding or promoting certain religious beliefs and practices. If a Christian nation was their aim, then the Founders should have required the government to promote Christianity -- not forbidden it from doing so.
In future blog posts [on Politics without God], I will say more on the relationship of the Founding Fathers to religion, as the half-truths and outright lies spread by the theocrats must be combated. Yet it's amazing that a clear look at just these few passages from the Constitution wholly undermine their basic claim that America was founded as a Christian nation.
Yet Another Reason to Get Out of the U.N.
By Paula Hall from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogIf a bunch of Islamic nations have their way, it will be against international law to hurt people's feelings about their religion. The forum in which this atrocity is being pushed? Are you sitting down? The United Nations. (I know that was a big surprise -- are you OK?)
Whatever the current facts on the ground, the United States is still regarded today primarily as an idea -- the idea that freedom is the only proper social system. Every day the United States and other freedom-loving countries remain in the U.N. is another day dictators and violent theocrats worldwide enjoy a patina of legitimacy through association with free nations. If the free nations withdraw, the legitimacy of the violent nations will vanish and the U.N. will implode as they try to kill each other. Best thing for the U.N., really.
(Via The Volokh Conspiracy and Overlawyered, and cross-posted to ms. think.)
Is Climate Change Racist?
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogBlogger LaShawn Barber skewers the latest report from the leftist Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, entitled "A Climate of Change: African Americans, Global Warming, and a Just Climate Policy in the U.S.".
According to the report:
African Americans are thirteen percent of the U.S. population and on average emit nearly twenty percent less greenhouse gases than non-Hispanic whites per capita. Though far less responsible for climate change, African Americans are significantly more vulnerable to its effects than non-Hispanic whites. Health, housing, economic well-being, culture, and social stability are harmed from such manifestations of climate change as storms, floods, and climate variability. African Americans are also more vulnerable to higher energy bills, unemployment, recessions caused by global energy price shocks, and a greater economic burden from military operations designed to protect the flow of oil to the U.S.Rand Simberg notes that this is almost a real-life version of the parody New York Times headline, "World Ends: Women And Minorities Hit Hardest".
Or as Simberg notes, "I'm sure glad that this issue hasn't been politicized."
Taking Trans Fats off the Menu
By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogTaking Trans Fats off the Menu
By David Holcberg (Washington Post, August 3, 2008)
Regarding the July 26 news article "Calif. Becomes 1st State to Enact Trans Fat Ban":
California has no right to ban trans fats in restaurants or in retail baked goods. The government has no right to dictate to restaurants and other outlets what food they can or cannot sell, and it has no right to dictate to individuals what food they can or cannot buy.
Individuals should be free to judge for themselves what foods to eat, including if and when to eat foods containing trans fats.
Those who think that trans fats are unhealthy are free not to eat food that contains them -- and free to persuade others not to sell or eat such food. They have no right, however, to impose their dietary preferences on those who disagree with them.
Let Mergers Take Place
By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogLet Mergers Take Place
By David Holcberg (USA Today, July 30, 2008)
The government has no business interfering in mergers such as the one between Sirius and XM Satellite Radio, which was approved Friday. Mergers are a legitimate business strategy to gain customers, increase sales, raise productivity and boost profit ("Sirius-XM radio deal closes in on FCC approval," Money, Thursday).
When government limits the ability of media companies to publish or broadcast their content, it violates their free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Such limits do not protect free speech. They infringe on it.
All companies have a moral right--and should have the legal right--to decide whether to merge and should be free to act on, and profit from, this decision.
...And a Few Reasons Obama Might Not Be Such a GOOD President
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlogMaybe this blog is right about Obama. Maybe, just maybe, he is not merely a vacuous welfare state politician who craves attention. Maybe he is a committed ideological communist.
The very word communist evokes snickers from leftists. They think it is an exaggerated concept, something blown all out proportion by McCarthyist right-wingers who use the word to smear Democrats and progressives. But there are still real communists in this world. As few communists as there are left in America, Obama has managed to associate with a surprising number of them.
Here is a picture of Obama when he was a part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago.
Greg Ransom explains the picture:
What Obama is teaching here is from the play book of radical pressure politics developed by Saul Alinsky. The record suggests that Barack Obama had so internalized the "ends justify the means" logic of Alinsky radicalism that Obama was comfortable with the power politics of even physical intimidation. And this is the sort of stuff Obama was teaching in the classrooms of the U. of Chicago Law School.
[At the top it says "POWER ANALYSIS". The next line reads "RELATIONSHIPS BUILT ON SELF INTEREST". The link between "CORP" and "MAYOR" is "$". That's how Obama sees the world -- regardless of whatever words his speech writers might put in his mouth this campaign season.]
Many Americans would not find Obama's Power Analysis controversial at all, so widespread is anti-business bias today. His argument does originate with Marx; it implies that we need noble government knights in shining armor like Obama to regulate the greedy corporations that corrupt mayors with their $. (McCain would agree entirely with Obama, which is why he is so dangerous and why I will NOT vote for McCain. It's either Obama or abstain.)
As a young man Obama followed the radical Saul Alinsky:
"As Obama was preparing to graduate from Columbia he wasn't sure what he wanted to do with the rest of his life. Finally, in 1983, he decided to follow in the footsteps of one of his heroes, radical leftist and communist fellow traveler, Saul Alinsky. He concluded, "That's what I'll do… I'll organize black folks at the grass roots… for change."
...
So who is Saul Alinsky?
According to Wikipedia, "Alinsky was a critic of a passive and ineffective mainstream liberalism. In Rules for Radicals, he argued that the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends, and that an intermediate end for radicals should be democracy because of its relative ease to work within to achieve other ends of social justice."
In Rules for Radicals Alinsky writes, "There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."
This is where Senator Barack Obama's campaign about "Change" comes from. He is not talking about positive change but rather the change outlined by his mentor Saul Alinsky. Revolutionary change. Socialist change.
Could Obama's lack of substance be a conscious, Machiavellian -- or should we say Alinskyan -- deception? Are Obama's flip-flops his way of doing whatever is necessary to gain power? Who is the real Obama?
And don't forget this:
His mild-mannered style has thrown off even some angry black radicals, who want him to speak out more forcefully about the legacy of U.S. racism and economic inequality.
One is Princeton professor Cornel West, a militant black and self-described socialist. Reportedly, West was reluctant to join the refined Obama's presidential campaign until Obama took him aside and explained to him that he had to walk a rhetorical tightrope to reassure whites. West is now solidly on board his campaign as an adviser.
If this is true, then Obama is hiding his radicalism in order to gain power.
From that same article:
Cone says [Obama] wants to see a "new system" in America "in which people have the distribution of wealth."
If this is true, then Obama has plans for America that he is not sharing with us.
And then there is his wife Michelle's disturbing ideas:
...Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual; uninvolved, uninformed.
Some of her ideas are laudable, but none of this comes within the proper role of government. The state has a legal monopoly on the use of force, and force is how the state gets things done. It is a violation of individual rights for the state to force people to shed their cynicism, come out their isolation, move out of their comfort zones, etc. In a free country the state does not "require you to work."
I'm not sure what to make of all this. Is Obama a Peter Keating type or a stealth socialist? Or some combination of the two?
As I wrote in my last post, Obama has no mandate, so if he has hidden radical plans, he will have a hard time getting them done. Maybe he is counting on help from the MSM and the Democrats in Congress to foist radical change on un unsuspecting American public. Whatever, we should take comfort that it's hard to effect sweeping, radical change in the American system of government.
Obama is to some extent only doing what the rest of the Democrat Party has done since the ascension of the New Left and the debacle of the McGovern candidacy in 1972: appearing moderate to get elected. Political reality forced both Carter and Clinton to govern moderately. If the political reality changes because of the deterioration of the American sense of life and the "dumbing down" of America, then we could be in for some nasty surprises in the coming years.
I offer these thoughts for our consideration as we struggle to figure out how to vote in November.
Mean-Spirited Anti-Globalists
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogSpiked editor Brendan O'Neill recounts an amazing degree of mean-spiritedness recently exhibited among leftists obsessed with "globalization". Apparently, they're so happy about Starbucks contracting that they're indifferent to (or even gleeful about) the fact that thousands of its employees are losing their jobs.
But what is bad news for coffee-shop workers is brilliant news for well-to-do writers for whom Starbucks' once-unstoppable spread summed up everything that is Rotten about Greedy Capitalism. The 12,000-plus workers without jobs don't even get a mention in one British commentator's overexcited dance on the grave of Starbucks' shut-down stores: "Bad news for Starbucks shareholders, great news for those of us who resent the ubiquitous coffee chain's omnipresence in our towns and cities." Indeed, she thinks it would be a good thing if Starbucks' "US and Oz slump gets a grip here [in Britain]". [Americanized punctuation. Omitted footnotes.]Incredible. You'd have to read it yourself to believe it!
Earlier, after describing the extent of the layoffs, O'Neill recalls that, "In fact, suggested one writer at the end of last week, send them to 're-education camps', North Korea-style, because the skills they learned at cynical Starbucks 'won't be transferable'".
It's interesting that leftists are no longer feeling as much need to hide behind a mask of concern for their fellow man, especially since we are now being asked to sacrifice ourselves to nature (read: "inanimate objects") rather than, at least, to other human beings. (Not that I'm a fan of sacrifice under any circumstances....)
-- CAV
August 4, 2008
For Greens, the Energy Crisis Is Not a Problem, It's the Solution
By Keith Lockitch from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogFor Greens, the Energy Crisis Is Not a Problem, It's the Solution
August 4, 2008
Irvine, CA--Two of the problems our presidential candidates are being called upon to solve are the spiraling cost of energy and the "crisis" of man-made global warming. Both Senators McCain and Obama claim to have a unified strategy for tackling both problems.
"The notion that these two issues can be addressed simultaneously is nonsense," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "No policy aimed at 'fighting global warming' can help solve the energy crisis. An energy crisis is the proposed 'solution' to global warming.
"More than 85 percent of the world's energy comes from carbon-producing fossil fuels. And despite all the propaganda we hear about a 'new energy economy' just around the corner, there are no realistic, abundant alternatives available any time soon. Any measures enacted to 'fight climate change' can lead only to a worsening of the energy crisis.
"And it is not at all clear that climate change is something that needs to be fought. Even though we are constantly told that global warming is occurring at an accelerating rate, in fact global temperatures have been flat for the last decade. We are told that global warming is causing more frequent and intense hurricanes and a catastrophic rise in sea levels, yet the data don't support such claims. Global warming alarmism is more environmentalist hype than scientific fact.
"There is no evidence that cutting off our carbon emissions would have any noticeable impact on the world's climate," Lockitch said. "Yet it would cause a catastrophic blow to the world's economy and therefore to people's lives. Energy use is an indispensable component of almost everything we do every day. And billions of people around the world are suffering right now for lack of abundant energy.
"The only crisis we need to worry about is the unnecessarily high cost of energy--and the solution to that is to remove coercive Green restrictions on oil production, and to start drilling and burning."
### ### ###
Don't Ban Trans Fats
By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
Don't Ban Trans Fats
August 1, 2008
Irvine, CA--California recently became the first state to ban trans fats. Praising the ban, Governor Schwarzenegger issued a statement saying, "California is a leader in promoting health and nutrition, and I am pleased to continue that tradition by being the first state in the nation to phase out trans fats. Consuming trans fat is linked to coronary heart disease, and today we are taking a strong step toward creating a healthier future for California."
But according to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "This ban is really just an instance of nanny state paternalism. Keeping healthy should be the individual's responsibility.
"To the extent trans fats pose a real threat, these bans are unnecessary. No one is forced to consume trans fats and, indeed, under pressure from consumers, many food makers have voluntarily stopped using them.
"The fact that some people will choose an unhealthy lifestyle is no justification for dictating what the rest of us can and can't eat. Individuals have a right to decide for themselves whether and how much trans fats are safe to eat--and they, in consultation with their doctors, are perfectly able to do so. But under the ban, those who occasionally enjoy the cheaper, tastier, longer-lasting foods trans fats make possible are being unjustly punished--along with the food industry--to protect the irrational from themselves.
"Instead of trying to 'lead the nation in fostering health' at the point of a gun, California should lead the nation in advancing individual responsibility and individual freedom. A good place to start would be rescinding the trans fats ban."
### ### ###
Quick Roundup 350
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogYour guess is as good as mine.
I head up to Boston tomorrow to see my wife and do some job hunting. Since her place has Internet, I wasn't even going to mention the trip since I anticipated no interruptions to my normal posting schedule.
Or at least I didn't until yesterday, when some weather in the Gulf I'd been keeping an eye on did what I was afraid it might do and develop into a storm. As Stan's Uncle Jimbo of South Park might put it, "It's coming right for us!"
This thing wasn't even classified as a depression until some time yesterday, and now the forecasters are saying it could be a minimal hurricane at landfall, which currently is right around the time my plane is supposed to take off!
There really isn't much time to change my plans or basis doing so. If it stays on course and it's a minimal hurricane, I'd want to make sure things are fine at home before going up and I imagine my flight would be canceled anyway. If it dissipates or makes landfall in Louisiana, it would be a waste of money to have changed my plans. If Edouard stalls, intensifies, and then slams Houston, I'll already be out of here if it does. And then, of course, since its path is nearly parallel to the coastline, even a tiny deviation will make it miss Houston entirely. I'm rooting for it to wobble to the right a little and crash-land in the swamps of Acadia.
The (highly unlikely) worst-case scenario is for it to stay on course and somehow become a major storm during the short time it has left at sea. As I learned with Rita, it would already be too late to leave by the time that became apparent.
This storm has a similar origin as Alicia, which hit Houston in 1983 and was the last major storm to do so. Fortunately, it seems, Edouard formed north of where Alicia did and thus has less time to grow before making landfall. If it doesn't stall.
Awhile back, I came up with a list of things I'll miss (and not miss) about Houston. Were I to make a top ten list of things I'll definitely be glad to leave behind, surprise storms like this would top it!
Oh yeah! So if Edouard smacks Houston and you don't hear from me for awhile, I'll be digging through the rubble as fast as I can, and probably waiting for the power to come back on after that....
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, RIP
Ilya Somin writes a thought-provoking obituary of the author of A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. Somin credits Solzhenitsyn with exposing the horrors of the Soviet regime, but notes that this did not make him a champion of individual rights.
[H]e was suspicious of Western-style democracy and individual rights. While he was not as much of a chauvinist as some other Russian nationalists, his writings defending czarist Russia and Russian culture sometimes verged into anti-Semitism. ... Solzhenitsyn's nationalism also led him to endorse some of Vladimir Putin's authoritarian measures, and to oppose allowing Ukraine to become independent of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union (he did, to his credit, support independence for all the non-Slavic parts of the former Soviet empire, which he did not consider to be legitimate Russian possessions).The "nationalism" Somin speaks of in his first paragraph sounds to me more like a tribal or racial variant of collectivism than the nationalist variety. Or the communist variety.
It is not my intention here to emphasize Solzhenitsyn's negative aspects. For what it's worth, I think that while Solzhenitsyn was wrong to excuse and minimize the crimes of czarist Russia, he was right to emphasize that the oppression of the Soviet Union was rooted more in communist ideology and institutions than in Russian cultural tradition. As he pointed out, similar repression occurred in every other communist state, including those whose preexisting cultural traditions were very different from Russia's. [bold added]
Solzhenitsyn was right to expose the atrocities of the Soviet regime, but he is also an object lesson regarding the importance of fundamental philosophical ideas. Racists and nationalists -- and all other varieties of collectivists -- are guilty of varying degrees of tyranny to the extent that they practice their ideas and due to the nature of their ideas. An indictment of one type of collectivism does not get any other version of the same thing off the hook.
Simple rebellion against one form of collectivism does not an individualist or an ally in the fight for freedom make. Knowing that there is a problem is not the same thing as identifying the solution to that problem. Note Solzhenitsyn's support of Putin.
Unions against Freedom of Speech
I blogged on this long ago, but the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" will threaten the freedom of millions of American workers and the standard of living of everyone if it is enacted. It is one of many things we will be facing soon, thanks in large part to the fact that in the twelve years the Republicans held power in Congress, they failed to embrace a moral defense of capitalism or act to repeal the welfare state in any significant way.
Both supporters and opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act believe it would simplify and speed labor's ability to unionize companies. Currently, companies can demand a secret-ballot election to determine union representation. Those elections often are preceded by months of strident employer and union campaigns.
Under the proposed legislation, companies could no longer have the right to insist on one secret ballot. Instead, the Free Choice, or "card check," legislation would let unions form if more than 50% of workers simply sign a card saying they want to join. It is far easier for unions to get workers to sign cards because the organizers can approach workers repeatedly, over a period of weeks or months, until the union garners enough support.
Employers argue that the card system could lead to workers being pressured to sign by pro-union colleagues and organizers. Unions counter that it shields workers from pressure from their employers.
Conservative columnist Lorie Byrd quotes Oregonians for Employee Freedom in the vein of fleshing out what the Wall Street Journal calls "workers being pressured to sign":
Unions "prefer card check because it means they know exactly how people are going to vote. For anyone who doesn't agree with joining the union, they are more open to threats, intimidation and undue pressure by other co-workers, union organizers and even their supervisors. Workers can even be visited in their homes by union organizers so that the organizers can 'persuade' workers that a union is the right thing to do in their workplace."She then cites this looming threat as a reason to vote for conservatives. I wish stopping it were so simple.
Too bad more people don't see such things as reason to help more people, including themselves, understand the intellectual foundations of individual rights and the importance of protecting them in our daily lives. Even if the conservatives grow a spine and stop this, theirs will be a holding action at best and may even precede other kinds of encroachments on our rights that they favor.
One More for the Road
Just after posting this, I happened to notice that Stephen Bourque has written about something I noticed, but which had slipped my mind: A trial balloon on Obama's part for nationalizing the oil industry.
I wonder: what policy would not be acceptable to the masses if it were uttered by this charismatic, undenouncable Messiah? How does Mr. Obama's "emergency economic plan" differ from say, Hugo Chavez's nationalization of Venezuela’s oil industry? It differs only in degree, not in kind: he plans to use government force to seize the assets of private citizens in one particular industry, for the purpose of advancing his socialist agenda (an agenda opposed by almost nobody today). If Mr. Obama becomes our next president, what is to stop him from wielding the entire executive branch to implement a de facto, if not de jure, nationalization of the oil industry? Then, after oil, how about steel? Pharmaceutical drugs? Automobiles? Insurance? Corn? Wheat?Read it all, and then look at the comments.
-- CAV
Updates
Today: Added fourth section.
10 Reasons Obama Might Not Be Such a Bad President
By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog1. He has no mandate. Yes, he has campaigned on the word change, but change from what to what? His rhetoric is empty. He is not a crusader for bold new programs.
2. He is a social metaphysician. Like that pathetic guy you once knew who agreed with everything you said just to be your friend, Obama is more concerned with what other people think than with the facts of reality. As do Bill Clinton and many politicians, Obama wants to be loved more than anything. Basking in the adoration of mass crowds will be more important to him than reading tedious position papers and actually getting something done. Such a character trait promises mediocrity.
3. He lacks intelligence. I have yet to hear him say anything remotely intelligent or profound. Again, this points to a mediocre presidency of business as usual.
4. He lacks experience. He has done little in his life except run for office, and he will likely continue to do little in the White House.
5. He lacks integrity. He flip-flops on a dime for political expedience. He hasn't the spine to fight for serious change.
6. The Republicans will make his life hell. I expect the evil, obstructionist Republicans in Congress to oppose every breath Obama takes, and to harry him the way they did Clinton. They would not oppose McCain's big government policies the way they would a Democrat's. If the Republicans let us down here, then the entire goddamn party deserves to rot in the wilderness and shrink to marginal importance.
7. His presidency would expose big government. His failures would be attributed to big government liberalism, not to capitalism, as he does not pay lip service to freedom the way Republicans do (who pursue big government as much as the Democrats). A Democrat president would bring more clarity, instead of more of the confusion we have suffered under Bush.
8. He will keep us laughing. He makes so many gaffes, such as saying he has been to 57 states in America, that he will provide much entertainment and much content for this blog.
9. We can get beyond "the first black president." Once we have achieved the cultural milestone of electing the first black president, then race -- at least the black race -- should become a non-issue. No one will campaign to be "the second black president." Future African-Americans will have to campaign on ideas and policies, not their skin color, and that will be a good thing. (The only drawback is that the immediate focus will shift to "the first female president," and you know who that means.)
10. The religious right will suffer a minor setback. Abortion will be safe for the time being. Granted, Obama's judicial nominees will certainly be atrocious statists who view the Constitution as toilet paper and laugh at the concept of property rights... but I'm looking for positives here.
To sum up, we stand at a dangerous moment in America. Both parties have embraced big government. Both McCain and Obama promise to march us down the road to socialism. In such a time, we need a president who will be the least competent in attaining his goals. By every standard of measurement, the major party candidate who promises to be more incompetent and ineffective is Obama. I believe his presidency would be like Bill Clinton's: heavy on symbolism, light on substance.
The greatest irony in an election full of ironies is that the candidate who has campaigned for change will probably be a business as usual, status quo president. Even on Iraq, when you examine his statements, he promises the same things Bush does. Muddling on as we have for decades is not good, but it's not as bad as it would be under a crusading socialist like Ralph Nader.
This post is not an endorsement for Obama -- it's still too early. I want to see the VP picks, the conventions, the debates and the serious mud-slinging in the fall before I decide. But this post shows my recent thinking.
Chinese Surprise
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogStrategyPage reports on China's last-minute announcement that it will monitor the internet activity of foreign visitors during the Olympics:
In preparation for the August Olympic Games in Beijing, China has installed hardware and software in all hotels, to make it easier for state security to monitor foreign visitors that use the Internet. Some foreign owned hotels leaked the documents (orders from the Chinese government to install the systems) to U.S. government officials, who made it public. The foreign owned hotels in Beijing were threatened with closure if they did not comply.The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has said that they are "surprised" by this decision, especially since the IOC has been telling foreign journalists all this time that they would have "free and uncensored Internet access".
Years ago, the Chinese government promised there would be open access to the Internet during the games. This despite the fact that the Chinese Internet is designed to be easily monitored by a huge (over 30,000 people) bureaucracy that does nothing but monitor Internet use (and imprisons those who say anything the state does not approve of.)
The real surprise is that the IOC would have believed the earlier Chinese government promises of "free and uncensored Internet access", despite decades of authoritarian and repressive behaviour by that same government.
These are the problems you get when you grant undeserved moral sanction to countries like China, treating them as if they were on par with much freer countries like Japan, Australia, and the those in Western Europe.
Al Gore Places Infant Son In Rocket To Escape Dying Planet
By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogSometimes The Onion is just f***ing brilliant. Here are a few excerpts from their story, "Al Gore Places Infant Son In Rocket To Escape Dying Planet":
EARTH -- Former vice president Al Gore -- who for the past three decades has unsuccessfully attempted to warn humanity of the coming destruction of our planet, only to be mocked and derided by the very people he has tried to save -- launched his infant son into space Monday in the faint hope that his only child would reach the safety of another world.
...Al Gore -- or, as he is known in his own language, Gore-Al -- placed his son, Kal-Al, gently in the one-passenger rocket ship, his brow furrowed by the great weight he carried in preserving the sole survivor of humanity's hubristic folly.
"There is nothing left now but to ensure that my infant son does not meet the same fate as the rest of my doomed race," Gore said. "I will send him to a new planet, where he will, I hope, be raised by simple but kindly country folk and grow up to be a hero and protector to his adopted home."
...In the final moments before the Earth's destruction, Gore expressed hope that his son would one day grow up to carry on his mission by fighting for truth, justice, and the American way elsewhere in the universe, using his Earth-given superpowers to become a champion of the downtrodden and a reducer of carbon emissions across the galaxy.
August 1, 2008
Words Mean Things
By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlogThis morning, I ran across sad, but a little-known episode in history, but before I bring it up, consider the following definition.
socialism -- a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. [bold added]You can get this, or something like it, from any dictionary, any time. And the justification for this -- the "common good" -- hardly needs stating.
Under socialism, you own nothing and any real or imagined benefit you may see as an individual is irrelevant unless it is in line with whatever whoever is in charge of the collective deems to be the common good. To imagine that it is what you think or hope it is is the height of naivete.
Considering these things, it is not too surprising that one Russian author, who would eventually escape tyranny to make her fortune in America, would make the following connection at the age of twelve, and remain puzzled as an adult that so many in America failed to make it:
When, at the age of twelve, at the time of the Russian revolution, I first heard the Communist principle that Man must exist for the sake of the State, I perceived that this was the essential issue, that this principle was evil, and that it could lead to nothing but evil, regardless of any methods, details, decrees, policies, promises and pious platitudes. This was the reason for my opposition to Communism then -- and it is my reason now. I am still a little astonished, at times, that too many adult Americans do not understand the nature of the fight against Communism as clearly as I understood it at the age of twelve: they continue to believe that only Communist methods are evil, while Communist ideals are noble. All the victories of Communism since the year 1917 are due to that particular belief among the men who are still free. -- Ayn Rand in "Foreward", We the Living, vii.And yet many did not make this connection then. Nor do many now recognize or admit to themselves that both American political parties are promising to achieve similar goals now, using similar justifications.
Particularly sad is the fate of a group of Americans who emigrated to the Soviet Union during the Great Depression only to learn when it was too late exactly what state ownership of the means of production entails for one's daily life:
... [T]housands of Americans [were] lured by sham Soviet propaganda and pro-Soviet falsehoods spread by the likes of George Bernard Shaw and the corrupt New York Times Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty [and] migrated to the USSR in search of jobs and a role in the "building of socialism." ...The lawlessness follows directly from the purpose of the government in a socialist state versus that in America: the subordination of the individual to the collective versus the protection of the individual. In addition to active repression, if an individual is harmed and it doesn't affect the state, why would the state expend its resources to protect individuals? (The rise of anarcho-tyranny in the West shows elements of both aspects of this difference.)
They came to Russia full of enthusiasm, bringing with them baseball and jazz, and eager to acclimatize. Russians found it difficult to believe the Americans' tales of woe when they saw their clothes, luxurious by Russian standards. And the migrants were themselves quite unprepared for the poverty and lawlessness which characterized life under Stalin, and in many if not most cases decided to leave. They soon learned, however, that when they surrendered their American passports upon stepping on Soviet soil (passports which were then used by Soviet agents in America), they had become, automatically, Soviet citizens. Protests and appeals to the American authorities qualified the emigres in Moscow's eyes as troublemakers and led to their arrests, followed by confinement in concentration camps.
Stalin, whose paranoia grew to the point where he confessed he could not even trust himself, had no use for these foreigners. This was for two reasons. One was that he feared they would spread discontent among Soviet citizens. The other was that he feared they would demand repatriation and, on returning home, enlighten Americans about the dreadful conditions of life in the USSR. So he ordered them to be treated as Soviet citizens, accused of "espionage" and isolated in the Gulag from which few were expected to emerge alive. [some format edits, bold added]
It is very easy today to lay the blame for Obamamania (as well as the very fact that McCain is his "opponent") on decades of Americans having had their minds crippled by anti-conceptual "Progressive" education while at the same time being subjected to collectivist propaganda. No wonder so many people don't see these differently-complected ideological twins for what they are!
Poor education does account for part of the problem. But what of the 1930s? If some people were less-educated in terms of years spent in school, they were also less exposed to collectivist propaganda and less mentally crippled. If some were better-educated, they were probably better able, on the whole, to think in abstract terms. Why did so many fall so easily for propaganda in the service of ideas that are plainly, upon examination, dangerous to put into practice?
Part of the difficulty is philosophical. The problem of tying abstractions to concretes was unsolved and the idea that the moral and the practical are at odds is an ancient one. These problems doubtless made many unable to see the merits of individual rights vs. socilaism (or mount a good intellectual defense of freedom) and less easily able to consider the practical merits of such sweeping applications of altruism as socialism. (The author I cite above has, in my judgement, admirably solved these philosophical difficulties. If freedom is to be preserved, more intellectuals need to become aware of and understand her ideas.)
And yet, we have that definition of socialism, which at minimum would tell anyone that he will, at best, be at the mercy of some state official or set of neighbors who happen to like him, when he needs something. And we all have a memory bank full of examples of less-than-benevolent people to tell us that leaving our lives to chance like this is a bad idea.
In some cases, an individual accepts collectivism due to his own moral defect, which I have sometimes called the "dictator fantasy". In this fantasy, he focuses on what he thinks he'll get out of the "deal", while forgetting that since his chosen method of dealing with others has become the sword, he will eventually die by the sword.
Whatever the causes of the incredible ability of so many Americans to fail to appreciate the country they live in, two things make it imperative to fight against those who would "build socialism" (under whatever name) on our own soil. First, if they succeed, they will not be the only ones to suffer the consequences they deserve. Second, it could easily become too late. There will be nowhere to flee.
To make a distinction between life within the gulag and life without in a dictatorship -- excuse my redundancy here -- is to split hairs.
-- CAV
Fraud in Charity?
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogI was pretty floored to read this LA Times story about the huge percentage of charitable donations often going to fundraising firms, rather than the charity itself. The article begins:
For 24 years, Citizens Against Government Waste has exposed pork-barrel spenders and rallied tax critics. Its "Pig Book" and "porker" awards, meant to shame congressional leaders who exploit the public purse, have made the group a media darling and a political force. But when it comes to policing its own fundraising practices, America's self-proclaimed "#1 taxpayer watchdog" seems to have lost its bite.I found the article interesting for three reasons, in increasing order of importance:
Records filed with the California attorney general's office show that over the last decade, for-profit fundraisers for the nonprofit kept more than 94 cents of every donated dollar. ...
A Times investigation found hundreds of other examples of charities that pocketed just a sliver of what commercial fundraisers collected in their names. Some didn't get a dime or even lost money.
According to a comprehensive review of state records filed over a decade, the problem of paltry returns extends well beyond what has been reported in recent years among benevolent societies for police, firefighters and veterans. It affects charities large and small, well-known and obscure. It spans a range of causes, including child and animal welfare, health research and opposition to drunk driving. ...
Among The Times' findings:
* More than 100 charities raised $1 million or more from commercial appeals but netted less than 25 cents per dollar. Fundraisers got the rest.
* In 430 campaigns, charities got nothing: All $44 million donated went to fundraisers. In 337 of those cases, charities actually lost money, paying fees to fundraisers that exceeded the amount raised.
* In hundreds of other campaigns, charities apparently entered into contracts that limited their share of donations to 20% or less, no matter how successful the campaign.
* Groups with strong emotional or patriotic appeal -- those supporting animals, children, veterans and public safety workers, for instance -- often fared worst. Missing-children charities received less than 15% of more than $28 million raised on their behalf.
(1) It's a useful warning to anyone who donates to charity. Any donor should know where his money is going -- and how it's being spent.
(2) Altruism provides an all-too-handy cover for this kind of barely charitable activity. For many people, so long as they donate to some cause, even if their money is wasted, they're "doing good." In contrast, the egoist has every reason to care whether his money is being used to promote his values or not -- because those values are his motive for donating at all.
(3) I'm strongly inclined to say that a fundraising campaign for a charity where most of the funds raised end up in the pockets of mass marketers is fraudulent. Imagine that a person is asked to donate $50 to, say the American Breast Cancer Foundation, and so he writes a check to that organization. Yet in reality, $5 is going to that charity and $45 to the marketing company. In that case, the donation is not what the donor reasonably thinks it to be. Of course, marketing companies deserve to be paid well if they do their jobs well, and government regulations are pretty well useless. So perhaps "donor beware" is the proper rule unless a charity makes specific claims about how donor funds are used. Nonetheless, donors have every right to be pissed as all heck if they discover that the charity is mostly in the business of keeping itself in business.
Thoughts?
David Allen on GTD
By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlogAfter many years of using David Allen's Getting Things Done method of managing life, I cannot imagine living without it. So I was delighted to find, via Gus, a 45 minute talk he gave to Google introducing GTD. In the video, Allen doesn't talk about the details of how the system works. (For that, you'll have to buy the book. Given its power to transform your whole approach to purposeful endeavors for the better, it's well the few bucks.) Instead, he's giving a broad overview of why GTD works -- unlike any other system of "getting yourself organized."
The basic lesson: The mind has identity, and if you want your mind work superbly well in your pursuit of values, then you'd better develop a system of managing information, goals, and actions that respects its capacities and limitations. That system is GTD.
Congress Should Not Dictate Mental Health Benefits
By Thomas Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
Congress Should Not Dictate Mental Health Benefits
July 17, 2008
Irvine, CA--In a bipartisan effort, the House and Senate are finalizing legislation that forbids less favorable insurance coverage for mental illness than for physical illness. Lawmakers expect the measure to be on President Bush's desk for approval later this month.
"This bill violates an employer's right to control costs by limiting benefits," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "The bill's supporters point to the obvious fact that mental illness is as real and as destructive as physical illness. But employers have no duty to cure all ills, or any ills; rather, they have an absolute right to limit or deny employee coverage on any basis. For example, many employers are reluctant to foot the bill for what they see as open-ended therapies, whose great expense is not justified by any certain cure."
Back in 1996, Congress enacted the first federal Mental Health Parity Act, which prohibited employers from imposing lower annual or lifetime limits for mental treatment, as compared to physical treatment. The new law, which would apply to employers of more than 50 people, does not require that mental health coverage be offered. However, if such coverage is offered, it must feature equal coinsurance, co-pays, and deductibles; equal limits on doctors' visits and frequency and duration of treatments; and equivalent access to out-of-network providers.
"Such legislation illustrates the insidious, essentially fascist process by which creeping government regulation molds insurance companies into civil servants who slavishly implement political decisions handed down from Washington, D.C., raising everyone's health-care costs in the process," Bowden said.
"Health care is not a right. It is a value offered for profit by physicians, hospitals, and drug companies. Likewise, health insurance is not a right--it is a value offered by insurers for profit, and often paid for by employers as part of employee compensation. Insurers, and the employers or individuals who patronize them, have a right to set their own terms of trade. This includes the right to offer or purchase less favorable coverage for mental illness than for physical illness."
### ### ###
Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor, who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.
Thomas Bowden 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. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."
RSS
Medicare's "Free Market" Façade
By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
Medicare's "Free Market" Façade
July 18, 2008
Irvine, CA--Some Republicans are bemoaning the passage of a new law they say undermines allegedly free-market elements of Medicare--in particular, Medicare Advantage, a program which gives seniors the option of receiving their government-financed care through private health plans. They claim that such "free market" elements are crucial to controlling the spiraling costs that are plaguing Medicare.
"The view that programs like Medicare Advantage have anything to do with free markets is a delusion," said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "On a free market, each individual is responsible for his own--and only his own--health care. But Medicare Advantage is essentially no different from traditional Medicare: it forces some Americans to bankroll the health-care needs of other Americans. The inevitable result is our current health-care crisis.
"If the government guarantees health care to people, costs have to skyrocket. When someone else is footing the bill for health-care costs, consumers demand medical services without having to consider their real price. The artificially inflated demand this creates sends expenditures soaring out of control. It is irrelevant whether the government finances this spending spree directly, as it does with traditional Medicare, or indirectly, as with Medicare Advantage. In the end, the results are the same.
"The only way to fix the problems caused by government interference in medicine is to eliminate government interference in medicine--not to have some mishmash of government controls and market elements. By returning to a truly free system where each individual is responsible for his own health-care costs, we would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry, leading ultimately to high quality, affordable medical care for Americans. Let's start looking at ways to phase out government interference in medicine."
### ### ###
Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. A former finance professor, he has been published in academic as well as popular publications, and his opinion-editorials appear in major newspapers. He is frequently interviewed on national TV and radio. Dr. Brook lectures on Objectivism, business ethics and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
To book Dr. Brook for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213 (office)
949-838-5137 (cell)
media@aynrand.org
RSS
Creeping Christianity in the U.S. Military
By Thomas Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
Creeping Christianity in the U.S. Military
July 21, 2008
Irvine, CA--An active-duty soldier has sued the Department of Defense, alleging discrimination by the U.S. Army on the basis of his atheism. Specialist Jeremy Hall claims that, for example, he was ostracized by Christian soldiers when he refused to hold hands around the table and join in a Christian prayer at Thanksgiving. His federal lawsuit asserts he was also kicked off the promotion track for lacking religious faith.
"This lawsuit highlights one aspect of the insidious process by which the religious right's 'faith-based' agenda is corrupting American institutions," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "In the faith-friendly atmosphere of the Bush administration, religionists are taking big swings at the wall of separation between church and state. The allegations in this suit are consistent with recent controversies over evangelical proselytizing at the Air Force Academy and mealtime prayers at the Naval Academy.
"The military is duty-bound to actively shield its soldiers from ostracism and persecution such as that alleged in Specialist Hall's suit. Servicemen, like all Americans, are legally and morally entitled to exercise freedom of thought, which includes the freedom to accept or reject religion according to their own best judgment.
"In their interactions, soldiers should be required to cooperate based on their common values--a patriotic commitment to America's self-defense and to carrying out the specific tasks that goal requires. Religious dogma only undermines such rational cooperation, as centuries of faith-based warfare and persecution demonstrate.
"The religious right must be put in its place before it irreparably damages the wall between church and state. Americans are entitled to expect that the military, the courts, and the President will unite in protecting the First Amendment rights of all citizens. That means opposing, not promoting, attempts to inject religion into American institutions such as the armed forces."
### ### ###
Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor, who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.
Thomas Bowden 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. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."
Government to Blame for Housing and Financial Crisis
By from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogGovernment to Blame for Housing and Financial Crisis
July 21, 2008
Irvine, CA--In "The Government Did It," an opinion piece published last Friday on Forbes.com, Dr. Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, argued that our government's massive control over the housing and financial markets has led to many of the problems being blamed on the free market today.
"The financial peril of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," Dr. Brook pointed out, "should help expose the lie that today's financial problems are the result of an insufficiently regulated market."
Citing the government's hand in the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve Board's inflationary policy of keeping interest rates artificially low, the irrational lending standards forced on lenders by the federal Community Reinvestment Act, and the quasi-official policy of bailing out large financial institutions deemed too big to fail, Dr. Brook argued that "our government contributed to creating a situation in which millions of people were buying homes they could not afford, in which the participants experienced the illusion of prosperity, in which billions upon billions of dollars were going into bad investments. Eventually," Brook concluded, "the bubble burst."
"We do not need more regulation or economic 'steering.' What we need to do," said Brook, "is remove the government's power to coerce, bribe, reward and bail out irrational decisions. The unfree market has failed. It's time for a truly free market."
### ### ###
End Censorship on the Airwaves
By Don Watkins from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogEnd Censorship on the Airwaves
July 22, 2008
Irvine, CA--The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a $550,000 indecency fine against CBS Corp. for the infamous Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. The Court ruled that the Federal Communications Commission "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in issuing the fine.
"In fact," said Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, "the government should put an end to the non-objective 'indecency' laws that permit the FCC to dictate what Americans can say and hear on the airwaves.
"The Supreme Court has defined 'indecency' as speech that 'depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities and organs in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards.' But which Americans count--and don't count--as part of the community? Why are they king? And how are broadcasters to divine their supposedly shared standards?
"As the history of the government's anti-indecency regime has shown, these questions are unanswerable. The only way for broadcasters to play it safe is to engage in self-censorship, cutting any material regulators might declare indecent.
"And once the government becomes the enforcer of 'community standards,' no speech is safe. How long until the courts start rubber-stamping the Bible Belt's efforts to suppress the theory of evolution on the grounds that it is offensive, corrupts young minds, and undermines community values?
"It's time for the government to stop telling Americans what we can say and hear on the airwaves, and to protect our Constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech."
### ### ###
To interview Ayn Rand Institute experts on this topic, please contact media@aynrand.org
(Public-Private) Partners in Crime
By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog(Public-Private) Partners in Crime
July 24, 2008
Irvine, CA--The Wall Street Journal has just published a revealing opinion piece, "The Fannie Mae Gang," by editorial page editor Paul Gigot, a longtime critic of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
"Gigot's piece is a devastating expose of how these quasi-governmental behemoths concealed their shady practices and shaky finances by enriching powerful friends on Wall Street, Main Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.
"Gigot's account should lay to rest the idea that 'public-private partnerships' such as Fannie and Freddie bring valuable new assets to the free market. In fact, the government's only contribution to the market is to forcibly take some individuals' money and freedom for the sake of others.
"Fannie Mae's 'public-private' goal of 'promoting home ownership' turned out to mean nothing more than handsomely rewarding reckless lenders by forcing taxpayers to bail them out. Any proposal for how to clean up the Fannie Mess must seek to phase out and eliminate the twin housing monstrosities--not prop them up."
### ### ###
The Government Did It
By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogThe Government Did It
By Yaron Brook (Forbes.com, July 18, 2008)
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.
End the Fast Food Ban
By Don Watkins from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogEnd the Fast Food Ban
July 30, 2008
Irvine, CA--The Los Angeles City Council approved a one-year moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles. The first ban of its kind, its aim is to address America's alleged obesity epidemic.
"This moratorium will do nothing to make people lose weight," said Don Watkins, a writer at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But it will expand the government's control over our lives.
"Despite the demonization of the fast-food industry, places like McDonald's and Wendy's provide Americans with a convenient source of tasty, affordable food. Millions of Americans enjoy these restaurants without ever becoming obese. To punish them--as well as potential fast-food restaurant owners and employees--in order to control what they eat is a shameful violation of their rights.
"The government has no business dictating where and what people eat, or what their waistlines should be. Those are decisions that properly belong to individuals. The L.A. City Council should rescind this disgraceful ban."
### ### ###
To interview Ayn Rand Institute experts on this topic, please contact media@aynrand.org
Property Rights Go Up in Smoke in San Francisco
By Don Watkins from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlogAyn Rand Institute Press Release
Property Rights Go Up in Smoke in San Francisco
July 17, 2008
Irvine, CA--San Francisco is poised to pass one of the nation's most radical smoking bans. Mitch Katz, director of the city's Department of Public Health, endorsed the anti-smoking proposals saying, "Tobacco remains the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S.--period. It's government's responsibility to protect people from obvious risks."
But according to Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, "It's not the government's responsibility to protect us from risks, obvious or otherwise--its function is to protect our rights from being violated by physical force or fraud. The American system is not one of nanny-state paternalism, with the government controlling our lives and choices. It is a system in which the government exists solely to protect our freedom so we can direct our own lives and choices.
"That includes the choice to smoke cigarettes. The government has no more right to stop us from smoking than it has to force us to smoke. That decision is properly left to each individual. He has to judge for himself whether he thinks smoking provides genuine benefits and, if so, whether those benefits justify the risks.
"In the same way, it should be up to property owners to decide whether to allow smoking in their homes and businesses. If someone regards secondhand smoke as a nuisance or a risk, he is free to patronize non-smoking establishments--he has no right to impose his preferences on anyone else.
"I am much more concerned about the risk of big government than the risks of secondhand smoke. Once the government starts dictating our choices, then no aspect of our lives is off limits, from the food we eat to the medicines we take. The trans-fat bans now sweeping the nation are just the latest example of this fact.
"We need to put an end to these absurd bans--before all our rights go up in smoke."
### ### ###
Ayn Rand Institute experts are available for interviews on this topic.
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. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."
RSS