Were they both wrong?

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

Over the weekend, a commenter pointed me to some thoughts by Billy Beck about the Skip Gates arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that is worth taking into account, and which pertains to the one issue that has given me the most pause in my thinking about it. Namely: Was Crowley right to arrest Gates? I leaned strongly in Crowley's favor on that question, but still had some nagging doubts.

Since I can't do better than madmax did to introduce it, I'll let him do the honors:

At first I thought [Beck's comments were] typical libertarian anti-state drivel, but lately I have come to the conclusion that as the welfare-state increases (along with smiley-faced fascism), the police are getting more abusive. Beck thinks that Crowley arrested Gates essentially because he didn't like his attitude; i.e., arbitrarily. To me, Gates is clearly an anti-white racist but it may be the case that Crowley was wrong. I don't know. [minor edits]

Gates is clearly a racist, and seems to me to have been baiting Crowley. Having read Crowley's report, his arresting Gates did not strike me as unreasonable, assuming that Gates's actions were indeed interfering with the normal discharge of Crowley's duties. (Whether the charge of disorderly conduct is an appropriate or adequate tool in this case is, itself, an interesting, albeit separate, question.）

But Carlos Miller, to whom Beck links at the end of his post, indicates that the charge of disorderly conduct is frequently abused. Might it have been here? Might Crowley have tried another tack, as another commenter here suggested he should have? For different reasons (to nail down a different factual point and to show that Gates is being less than forthright about another), Ann Althouse suggests (via Glenn Reynolds) making the police recordings of the incident public.

If Crowley had been "acting foolishly," to use President Obama's words in a way he clearly did not intend, then Billy Beck is right on the money when he indicates that Skip Gates blew an opportunity to bring an important issue to the attention of the public.

If Gates finds it necessary, for whatever reasoning, to stake himself to race in a matter like this, then he can have it and be as small and ridiculous as he wants to be.

I have to say that I do not share Beck's apparent certainty that Crowley acted inappropriately. In large part, because my father was a cop, I can see a very good man in Crowley's shoes simply trying to do his job. But because my dad also taught me to think about everything carefully -- and made it clear to me that some policemen are little better than criminals -- I can see it Beck's way, too.

-- CAV

Are Conservatives Going To Save Socialism Again?

By Exalted Moments from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Based upon what I am reading, it looks like ObamaCare is in serious trouble. Here is a sample from Jennifer Rubin at Pajamas Media:

The air seemed to go out of the ObamaCare balloon Thursday. He was greeted by scathing reviews of his mediocre press conference the night before. Then the House Energy and Commerce Committee for the third time canceled its mark-up on the health care bill, a sure sign the votes just weren’t there.

But...at the same time the Intrade futures on "A federal government run health insurance plan to be approved before midnight ET 31 Dec 2009" are in a three week uptrend.

As I write this, Intraders are saying that there is a 49% chance of approval. I think the markets are saying there is a rising chance that the Republicans and conservative Democrats will be the ones to "get something done".

Let us not forget that it was conservative Mitt Romney who got health care done in Massachusetts. Said Romney in a 2006 Wall Street Journal piece:

BOSTON--Only weeks after I was elected governor, Tom Stemberg, the founder and former CEO of Staples, stopped by my office. He told me, "If you really want to help people, find a way to get everyone health insurance." I replied that would mean raising taxes and a Clinton-style government takeover of health care. He insisted: "You can find a way."

I believe that we have. Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced. And we will need no new taxes, no employer mandate and no government takeover to make this happen.

Only a mystic can come up with a something-for-nothing quote like that. USA Today reported recently on the Massachusetts plan.

Three years after mandating that residents get health insurance and requiring employers, insurers and taxpayers to chip in, Massachusetts has yet to control soaring costs that are eating up half its budget....

Dealing with cost and quality has proved trickier. Higher health care costs fueled a combined $9 billion gap in the state's 2009 and 2010 budgets that had to be closed last month, leaving less for education, public safety, the environment and other services...

Conservatives are a bigger enemy than Obama.

How Education Should Work

By Michael Gold from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Education should not be anti-intellectual, pragmatic, experiential (in the sense of being concrete-bound), etc. It should teach students to reason. It should follow Dr. Leonard Peikoff's definition of education, which he presented in his Philosophy of Education lecture series.

It should receive comments like these (which came to me from a parent and a student):

"So what do you think Ryan said in the car on the way home today? After I asked him how he liked class? 'I really like how I have to think about the "how" and the "why" of the problems. I've never really been asked to think like that before.' Wow. It gets better, though, with 'and it just makes so much more sense that way'. You only get the kid a few hours a week so you might not get to see the difference you make, but I get to hear these little gems almost daily. Cool." --Helene G, parent

"You taught me where it all comes from and the importance of the fundamentals. You were always prompt, well-prepared, and thorough." --Laurie P, student (college)

We need to give more attention to education -- if people cannot reason, cannot reason well, and don't care, then intellectual activism we engage in will be wasted; it will fall on deaf ears.

Michael Gold, B.S. Mathematics and B.A. Philosophy, is owner of MGTutoring.com, a math tutoring service. He has been involved in education for over fifteen years, teaching in public and charter schools before starting his own private tutoring service. He also blogs on education and related issues at MGTutoring.com/blog.

Letter to Senators and a Representative on the Health Care Bill

By Michael Gold from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Scott McDonald said in an email communication:

the following [letter] was sent to my representatives urging them to vote no on the health care bill:

Senator,

The Healthcare legislation currently being considered by the Congress is an affront to the founding principles of the United States. We are a nation where individuals are to be left alone to succeed or fail on their own. The legislation before the Congress violates this principle not only by making me my brother’s keeper, but by explicitly denying me the right to be my own keeper.

-This legislation denies me the right to my own life by putting care decisions in the hands of efficiency boards.

-This legislation denies me the right to my own liberty by denying me the ability to choose my own healthcare insurance.

-This legislation denies me the right to property by extorting my taxes to pay for the care of others.

-This legislation denies me the right to pursue my own happiness, because it makes me a ward of the state.

This legislation is morally wrong. I will actively vote against, and encourage others to vote against, any of my representatives who vote for it.

Integrity,

Scott McDonald

Forfeiting the Culture War

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

Woody Allen, a comedian beloved by lefties everywhere, once said that, "Eighty percent of success is showing up." Too bad that so many of his fans seem to think that eighty percent is enough when it comes to the culture war. Two stories that caught my eye this morning illustrate what I mean.

In the first, C. August names the issue clearly when he discusses the political rise of fundamentalists in Portland, Oregon, a city with a reputation for being so far to the left that one USA Today blogger he cites, "likened the Portland ethos to a disease, worrying ... about it 'metastasizing' to other parts of the country." (Conservatives tend to equate collectivism and skepticism with secularism. This is mistaken at best because both: (1) Collectivism neither exclusively nor necessarily follows from secularism; and (2) Skepticism and uncertainty are not the only alternative to religious faith. That said, the dominant philosophical outlook among secularists is skepticism and most secularists are leftists. I am, myself, neither a skeptic nor a collectivist, but an atheist and a capitalist. It is important to note further that atheism only describes my position regarding the question of the existence of God. It does not describe what I do hold to be true.)

It should not be surprising that the moral vacuum created by the nihilism of the left--the "city's secularism and skepticism" noted by the author--is driving people to the only alternative they know of: Christian altruism. That the progressives in this example are already gleefully practicing altruists, added to the fact that man requires moral standards whether he recognizes that fact or not, means that the denial of any objective moral code by the progressives makes them ripe candidates to be subsumed by their more philosophically consistent brethren. Of course, the Christians don't offer an objective moral code grounded in the facts of reality and the nature of man--only rational egoism is such an objective moral code--but because progressives deny the existence of objective truth to begin with... [bold added]

The secularists are certainly there in droves, but they're losing the culture war precisely because they have nothing to offer as a viable alternative to religious dogma. Most of them accept the altruism and collectivism of religion by default. Religion preaches these, too, but claims to offer certainty and standards -- two things possible and necessary for a proper human life.

We see this problem on a different scale in the lament of a "humanist" father that his children are asking him questions that presuppose the existence of God and that there seem not to be very many books around to help his children reach adulthood with a secular perspective:

... Are there any children's books, I wondered, that directly address religious questions from a humanistic point of view? Not necessarily an anti-Bible, but a strong alternative or counterpart in a secular key.

I called a friend of mine, who works for a humanist charity and is a parent too, feeling sure he would have some sage advice. His response surprised me. Not only did he not know of any good humanist children's books, he said, he didn't like the idea of such a thing. Rather than attempt to counter-indoctrinate kids with explicitly anti-religious messages, he argued, far better simply to expose them to the widest range of reading as possible - weren't Roald Dahl and Dr Seuss essentially humanistic? - and expose them to the manifold religions and philosophies in the world in order to nourish their imaginations and sense of wonder about the Universe, and help them view religion in a comparative context. The antidote I was seeking, he suggested, was to be found in books of evolution and science fiction, not didactic manifestos. [bold added]

Before I go on, I want to be clear that I sympathize with author Danny Postel: Helping a child develop a rational, independent mind despite the saturation of the culture with religious influence is exceedingly difficult. (And even if one does his best, human beings have free will. A child still also has to choose to think.)

That said, the very premises that govern most secular people -- See the bold above. -- cause them to see the issue as either indoctrination or providing no guidance at all. There is nothing wrong with reading about many religious traditions, but what good is it if the child has no concept of rationality? Or no standard by which to judge these traditions?

That Postel gets hung up on relatively unimportant content -- various religions and whether there is a God -- rather than concerning himself with how to teach his children how to think is important here. This premature concern tells me that he himself is crippled by the skepticism he extols, by the idea that certainty is impossible to man. The fact is that human consciousness, like anything else in existence, has a specific nature, and so functions in a specific way (i.e., by operating logically on sensory input and the concepts formed therefrom).

There are many reasons to be concerned about the cultural influence of religion, but whether a child believes (or thinks he believes) in God is among the least of these. If a child learns the proper method of dealing with such questions (and that method is generally applicable to all questions), he will be able to take care of himself. But one who rejects certainty as such will both fail to appreciate this fact and thus make religion seem more attractive to his children.

For example, saying something like, "Many people think that there is a God, but I don't," is fine, but it is just a start, and what one says (and teaches explicitly or demonstrates) in such situations is crucial. Unfortunately, Postel falls right into a trap of his own skeptical making:

"First, Theo, your question presumes that Jesus was God," I responded. "Many people, like mommy, believe he was, but many others don't. It also presumes that there is a God - we don't know for sure that there is." "I think there is," he retorted. "There may very well be a God, Theo. But not everyone agrees on that - there are many people who doubt there is a God. We might never know for sure if there is or not," I told him. "When we die we'll know," he came back. "Maybe," I said. "But maybe not."

If Postel is, as I suspect, a typical skeptic, all claims to knowledge are, to him, unwarranted and, as such, equivalent to religious faith. Furthermore, he would not see any consistent connection between perceptual knowledge and abstractions. This could explain why it seems not to occur to him to ask something like, "How do you know that Jesus is God?" (And if he saw such a connection, he would also realize that this is the first part of a line of questioning that will quickly cause young Theo to run out of ground to stand on.)

In addition to not understanding how to deal with (or demonstrate what is wrong with) arbitrary claims, an improper understanding of concept-formation on Postel's part could also account for his immediately attacking his son's premises rather than keeping the conversation on an appropriate level of abstraction for a child. His children may or may not be old enough to discuss such an issue, but no child is too young to learn that if he wants to say something is true, he ought to be prepared to back himself up with facts.

Postel's children may or may not be independent enough to begin to question religion on their own and they may or may not encounter a thinker like Ayn Rand during their intellectual development, but Postel's own philosophy is forcing him to leave many things to chance that he does not have to.

Worse, he may, with his haphazard, indiscriminate pedagogical approach and discomfort with what he takes to be certainty, even cause his children to have an incorrect idea of what being certain or rational or secular can and ought to mean. He risks making faith look like the shortest (or only) path to knowledge as they reach young adulthood, and are actively seeking guidance on philosophical issues in general and ethical questions in particular. Which religion, if they take it seriously enough, will not matter.

We have seen this before and we will see it again. If eighty percent of success is showing up, then the rest is knowing how to win. And the first part of that is knowing that you can know. Otherwise, you might as well show up for a ball game without even wearing a uniform and gape while the referee records a forfeit.

-- CAV

PS: It is important to note that secularism is properly only a position regarding a common belief and is not, as such, a coherent view of the world. Common cultural baggage aside, there is a need to go beyond simply opposing religion. It is not enough just to be a secularist. One must also offer an alternative to religion on every type of question it attempts to address. The fact that leftists are the largest fraction of secularists both obscures this fact and makes the position good polemical fodder for many less-than-forthright religious opponents.

Forty Years Yesterday

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

I was too young to remember the Apollo 11 mission to the moon, but have seen the footage and read many accounts about that glorious event. Ayn Rand wrote what I regard as both the best account ("Apollo 11", which can be found in The Voice of Reason) and the the best cultural commentary, "Apollo and Dionysus," (which also appears in Return of the Primitive).

I highly recommend reading the latter if you'd like to understand why I found the below video almost perfectly fitting for this anniversary.


On one level, Buzz Aldrin giving this mealy-mouthed and dishonest provocateur (one Bart Sibrel) the only kind of answer his ilk will acknowledge is very funny.

But within a cultural context, I find it sad, and it makes me angry. Mankind is an accomplished race, and yet we are grounded on our home planet due largely to a failure to understand property rights and apply the principle to space exploration. Worse, this grounding will probably extend into the foreseeable future because our culture is so primitive that, for example, conspiracy theories like the one peddled by Sibrel flourish. You can't expect a groundswell of support for private property from a mostly irrational culture .

The second man to have stepped foot on the moon on that glorious day neither should have also been one of the last nor should he have to fend off such a small adversary.

Take a moment to celebrate the moon mission, but don't forget that it symbolizes how bright our future can be when men of reason are free to create and profit from the kind of creativity that makes such things possible.

In the important sense that the moon mission was a government effort, rather than a private one, it was botched. But man reached the moon anyway. Just imagine what we could do if we worked to make America even as free as it was forty years ago, and realize that there is no need to be satisfied with that -- with any vestige of government control of the economy.

Buzz Aldrin's fight is our fight, but winning it will take more than fists. It will require two much more powerful weapons: The right ideas and persuasion of those open to reason.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Minor edits.

Objectivist Academic Center Deadline

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A note from the Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivist Academic Center:

The final deadline to apply for the OAC for the 2009-10 year is July 31! In the current cultural climate, there is no better time to study Ayn Rand's ideas in a systematic fashion, under the guidance of ARI's intellectuals.

Join other OAC students who are studying Rand's ideas; visit http://www.objectivistacademiccenter.org and apply today.

(Help us spread the word about the program and its deadline--please share this with students who might be interested in the OAC.)

I heartily recommend the OAC -- particularly to students pursuing a career as an intellectual, whether in academia, politics, journalism, law, or whatnot.

Update: I just got their longer pitch via e-mail. It explains the program a bit more for people unfamiliar with it.

If you've read one of Ayn Rand's novels you know that her writings are packed with radical, thought-provoking philosophical ideas. And perhaps you are interested in studying those ideas further. Then you might be interested in the Objectivist Academic Center.

The Ayn Rand Institute was founded on the conviction that Ayn Rand's philosophy could have a major positive impact on today's culture if more people were to become aware of it.  Our mission is to advance Ayn Rand's philosophy in order to change the culture's intellectual climate.

But the intellectual climate of a culture is established by the ideas put forward by the leading intellectuals of that culture: the philosophers, college professors, journalists, writers--those whose careers involve the dissemination of ideas, whether by teaching, public speaking, writing, or some other means.

To change our culture by spreading Ayn Rand's philosophy requires new intellectuals who have a deep understanding of that philosophy. The OAC offers a systematic education in Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and the methods of objective thinking and communication.

If you'd like to engage in a systematic study of Ayn Rand's ideas under the guidance of ARI's top intellectuals, visit the OAC web site and apply today. We can only offer a limited number of slots each year, so act soon! The deadline is July 31, 2009. Contact oac@aynrand.org if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Objectivist Academic Center
Ayn Rand Institute
949.222.6550

Campaign Finance Laws Stifle Speech

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I meant to post this op-ed some weeks ago, but it got lost in the shuffle. Better late than never!

"Campaign finance laws stifle speech" by Steve Simpson
Published on June 27th in The Colorado Springs Gazette

The Colorado Supreme Court recently turned down an opportunity to vindicate the First Amendment right to speak about politics without government getting in the way. That is bad news for Coloradans, but the case, a challenge to the campaign finance laws brought by the Independence Institute, places Colorado on the forefront of a growing battle over speech about campaigns.

Colorado, like the other 23 states that allow citizen initiatives, requires groups that wish to speak out for or against ballot issues to register with the state and to report contributions and expenditures - that is, to report detailed personal information about supporters and chronicle the group's political activities.

The nonprofit Independence Institute learned about these laws the hard way when it criticized Referenda C and D in 2005 and was promptly sued by a member of the campaign supporting the referenda who claimed the group had violated the campaign finance laws.

After spending thousands in legal fees defending itself, the institute brought its own suit challenging the laws under the First Amendment, but lost in both the trial court and the court of appeals. With the Colorado Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case, the last option for the institute is an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The question in this case cuts to the heart of political freedom in this nation: Can states require citizens who wish to band together to speak out about political issues to register with the government and disclose the identities of those who support them?

Supporters of these laws claim that groups might influence the outcome of an election, and that is certainly true - indeed, that is usually the reason to speak out during an election.

But allowing individuals to influence the course of their government is one of the main reasons we have a First Amendment. Americans have relied on the right to organize and to speak - often anonymously - from the founding generation, though the debates over ratification of the Constitution on up to today.

If the "free" in free speech means anything at all, it means that individuals who organize and speak have the right to determine their message and what information they disclose about themselves. Listeners can always demand more information or disregard what they hear entirely. But requiring individuals to disclose their contributions for or against ballot issues is no different from requiring them to disclose their votes.

The Independence Institute's case is not an anomaly. The same thing happened to a group of neighbors in Parker North, Colo., when they opposed the annexation of their neighborhood in 2006. They placed "No Annexation" signs on their lawns and were promptly sued by the proponents of annexation for failing to comply with campaign finance laws. A federal court found that "[b]y permitting this intimidation, Colorado's campaign finance laws had the effect of stifling political speech in violation of the First Amendment," but still refused to strike down the laws. That case is currently on appeal.

In California, during the debate over last year's marriage amendment, both sides used information obtained from campaign finance laws to harass and intimidate their opponents. A case challenging the laws is currently pending in federal court.

Federal courts in Wisconsin and Florida have recently struck down similar laws under the First Amendment. As the court in Florida wrote, "While it is true that the legislature has the power to regulate elections, it does not have the power to regulate purely political discussions about elections."

Despite the clear language of the First Amendment, the reality in America today is that to speak out about politics, you need more than an opinion - you also need a lawyer. Fortunately, courts are beginning to take notice of this sad fact, and we may soon see the day when free speech is once again a right, not a privilege.

Simpson is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents the Independence Institute and the Parker North neighbors.

There Is No Right to Health Care

By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

There Is No Right to Health Care

July 23, 2009

Washington, D.C.--President Obama’s health care reform is being driven by the idea that people have a right to health care and health insurance coverage. “This is wrong,” says Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center.

“There can be no such thing as a ‘right’ to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as our Founding Fathers conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but to freedoms of action.

“You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services--no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a ‘right’ to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.

“A real and lasting solution to our health care problems requires a rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights.”

### ### ###

 

Want Excellence in Education? Return to Reason

By Michael Gold from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

It is well documented that there is a problem with mainstream modern American education: many high school grads are unprepared for college level work; illiteracy in our culture has been increasing for decades; standardized test scores are up while the difficulty level is dumbed down; many are ignorant of basic science and history; many high school grads record poor writing skills, an index of poor thinking skills; businesses report that they are getting more and more people out of school who do not have the math, writing, reading, thinking and communication skills needed for the job.

To save education and the country, President Obama and Congress are pumping millions into education via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to improve the infrastructure of education, “reform” education, and get “better” teachers into teaching.

Another reformer, Alex Klein, writing in Education Week (“What I Want When I Teach,” June 11, 2009), proposes saving education through “merit pay”. Mr. Klein argues on the basis that “studies over the past 15 years have conclusively and consistently shown that the largest determinant for student success is teacher quality.” He suggests measuring “merit” with National Assessment of Educational Progress tests “coupled with...district- or school-level human evaluations.”

These proposals sound nice, but they hinge on the mainstream of education improving itself. Its track record, however, through all the other decades of “reform,” strongly indicates that it will hire and promote more of the same methods, ideas and curricula -- all of which it is holding onto with a passion -- that have gotten us where we are today. Teachers colleges, likewise, will continue to train teachers in the methods, ideas and curricula that have gotten us where we are, but with increasing vigor, since “reform” is ringing in the air.

The National Council of Teachers of English will continue to include sequencing a series of pictures in their definition of grammar; the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics will continue to de-emphasize or dispense with teaching proof in geometry and method in algebra; logic, induction and causality will continue to be absent from history, science, and the demands of writing; and “critical thinking” will continue to be used as smoke and mirrors to hide the absence of intellectual rigor in education as a whole.

All President Obama, Congress, Klein, and similar reformers will accomplish is funding ideas that have already failed.

The “reforms” we’ve heard so far have been superficial or of secondary importance, have drawn our attention away from the irrelevant and irrational ideas misdirecting modern education, and have drawn our attention away from what education is really about.

When we look at the results of mainstream modern American education -- poor writing skills evidencing poor thinking skills; illiteracy; historical and scientific ignorance; and more -- the evidence is overwhelming that, unfortunately, contrary to what we want to believe and to what we hear many educators say, we have a cultural and educational flight from reason: from grammar, induction, logic, proof, evidence. We need to get back to the basics.

We need to identify and promote the idea that the role of education -- contrasted with the myriad other institutions and activities in society and human life -- is to train the young to reason and to teach them the knowledge they need for work and adult life: literature, language, history, science, and mathematics. The rest is fluff.

Saving American education demands that we teach reasoning in the tradition stretching from Aristotle to Francis Bacon to Galileo Galilei to Maria Montessori to Ayn Rand. We must demand it of our educators.

We should teach, in all subjects, rigorous writing, grammar, logic, and proof.

Their importance, universality, and power is illustrated in the education of Abraham Lincoln: training in geometric, mathematical proof made him the thinker and writer he was in law and politics. He spent untold hours studying and memorizing the geometric proofs in Euclid’s Elements, a logical, structured presentation of geometry that has not been equaled since it was written in ancient Greece over 2,000 years ago. Via the Elements, geometric proof also had a profound influence on science, being a critical tool of thought for Galileo’s and Newton’s revolutionary work in physics.

And their great value and power over and above spoken and pictorial communication is identified by Dr. Walter J. Ong in "Orality-Literacy Studies and the Unity of the Human Race" (Oral Tradition, 2/1 (1987): 371-82): “ All science needs writing in order to achieve the tight, sequential, linear, ‘logical’ organization that science requires.” In “Literacy and Orality in Our Times,” Dr. Ong writes “Writing is an absolute necessity for the analytically sequential, linear organization of thought such as goes, for example, into an encyclopedia article. Without writing...the mind simply cannot engage in this sort of thinking, which is unknown to primary oral cultures.... Without writing the mind cannot even generate concepts such as ‘history’ or ‘analysis’... In the world of the creative imagination, writing appears necessary to produce” novels and stories with plots.

History is clear in demonstrating that when education focuses on reason, it works wonders. Ancient Greece, Renaissance Europe, and early America provide a plethora of examples. And the Middle Ages, Soviet Russia, Red China, the Khmer Rouge and human history before there was any education solidify the demonstration by contrast.

It is only when we return to the ideal of education as rigorous training in reasoning that the educational system of America will improve. Then we will have clear-cut standards for student performance, required subjects, testing, pedagogy, and teacher merit. Then we can “throw” money at education and have it improve. But then, we won’t need to.

(c) 2009 Michael Gold

Feyman's Nobel Banquet Speech

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

My earlier post on physicist Richard Feynman ("Feynman on Honors") spawned an intense discussion on whether Feynman's stated disdain for what he called "honors" indicated a rejection of justice.

In light of that, I'd like to post the text of his Nobel Banquet Speech delivered in Stockholm on December 10, 1965, followed by a few of my own comments.

Here is what he said:

Your Majesty, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen.

The work I have done has, already, been adequately rewarded and recognized.

Imagination reaches out repeatedly trying to achieve some higher level of understanding, until suddenly I find myself momentarily alone before one new corner of nature's pattern of beauty and true majesty revealed. That was my reward.

Then, having fashioned tools to make access easier to the new level, I see these tools used by other men straining their imaginations against further mysteries beyond. There, are my votes of recognition.

Then comes the prize, and a deluge of messages. Reports; of fathers turning excitedly with newspapers in hand to wives; of daughters running up and down the apartment house ringing neighbor's doorbells with news; victorious cries of "I told you so" by those having no technical knowledge - their successful prediction being based on faith alone; from friends, from relatives, from students, from former teachers, from scientific colleagues, from total strangers; formal commendations, silly jokes, parties, presents; a multitude of messages in a multitude of forms.

But, in each I saw the same two common elements. I saw in each, joy; and I saw affection (you see, whatever modesty I may have had has been completely swept away in recent days).

The prize was a signal to permit them to express, and me to learn about, their feelings. Each joy, though transient thrill, repeated in so many places amounts to a considerable sum of human happiness. And, each note of affection released thus one upon another has permitted me to realize a depth of love for my friends and acquaintances, which I had never felt so poignantly before.

For this, I thank Alfred Nobel and the many who worked so hard to carry out his wishes in this particular way.

And so, you Swedish people, with your honors, and your trumpets, and your king - forgive me. For I understand at last - such things provide entrance to the heart. Used by a wise and peaceful people they can generate good feeling, even love, among men, even in lands far beyond your own. For that lesson, I thank you...

I found the following aspects of his remarks especially noteworthy:

1) For him, his achievement was its own reward.

As a scientist, his primary orientation was towards reality and existence, as opposed to a second-hander's orientation towards other people. He eloquently noted the joy a brilliant scientist feels when, "...suddenly I find myself momentarily alone before one new corner of nature's pattern of beauty and true majesty revealed".

In that moment of achievement, it's him "alone" with nature.

2) He acknowledged and was justly appreciative of the recognition he received from his peers in the form of having his work "used by other men straining their imaginations against further mysteries beyond".

3) He recognized his winning the Nobel Prize served as a focal point by which others who might not understand much about physics could still offer their own appreciation and praise of his work. Although his primary motivation as a physicist was to unlock the secrets of nature, rather than to garner praise from others, he was genuinely appreciative of the praise he received from "friends and acquaintances".

And he returned their praise with a "depth of love" which he "had never felt so poignantly before".

In my experience, this sort of benevolence towards one's fellow man is possible only to those who are independent in a very deep way -- i.e., not primarily trying to seek the approval (or avoid the disapproval) of others.

4) He recognized that "honors" awarded by a "wise and peaceful people" were commendable. Hence, I think he had an implicit understanding of what Objectivists mean by "justice".

(I do acknowledge that his quote in the earlier post could be interpreted to indicate that he did not believe that "honors" were a form of justice.)

5) I'm not an expert on the biography or psychology of Richard Feynman, although I have read some of his books.

But my understanding of his attitude towards his work was that he was incredibly first-handed.

In that way, he was similar to Hank Rearden, as portrayed by Rand in Part 1, Chapter 8 of Atlas Shrugged ("The John Galt Line") as follows:

...[Rearden] was watching the performance of track and train with an expert's intensity of professional interest; his bearing suggested that he would kick aside, as irrelevant, any thought such as "They like it," when the thought ringing in his mind was "It works!"

Of course, Rand was not saying that all thoughts such as "They like it" are "irrelevant". After all, one of the key themes of Atlas Shrugged was the importance of granting approval and moral sanction to those who deserve it (and withdrawing it from those who do not deserve it).

But it's also clear from Rand's portrayals of Howard Roark or Hank Rearden, that an independent first-handed thinker would find others' praise of his work ("They like it") to be irrelevant to the primary reward that the creator gains from his achievement -- namely the work itself. This issue is separate from the fact that justice is a virtue and that in a healthy society, good men will receive justly-earned praise for their achievements.

My own take on Feynman was that because he was so extremely first-handed in his attitude towards his work, he viewed others' praise of his work as extremely secondary to the primary reward he gained from the work itself, which may have caused him to regard such praise as "unreal", just as Hank Rearden regarded others' approval of Rearden Metal as "irrelevant" to the primary reward of knowing that "it worked".

But Feynman was clearly still appreciative and thankful for the praise that he did receive when it came from those whom he esteemed. And in his Nobel Banquet speech, he expressed that gratitude with great warmth and benevolence.

To summarize: I found Feynman's first-handed attitude towards his work to be a rare and admirable trait. And given the fuller context provided by his Nobel Banquet Speech, I believe he also had at least an implicit appreciation for the Objectivist virtue of justice.

The Original Tea Party and Ours: Where the Parallels Stop

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

This is an expanded version of my original New Tea Parties post of July 13, and is the text of an address I will give at the Richmond, Virginia, Liberty 101 Tea Party on July 25.

Ladies, gentlemen, Americans: I am here today to shed some light on parallels between the original Tea Party and ours -- and where the parallels stop.

First, some background. On December 16, 1773, Bostonians and other locals roughly dressed as Mohawk Indians, boarded three American merchant vessels in the harbor, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver recently arrived from Britain with 342 chests of tea, and tossed the chests into the harbor. The tea nominally belonged to colonial American consignees, by appointment by the British East India Company (two of them sons of the royal governor, Thomas Hutchinson). The Tea Act of 1773 replaced the repealed Townshend Act duties on other commodities, and gave the East India Company a legal monopoly to hire other merchantmen to take the tea to North America.

The three-pence per pound tax remained on the tea. This tea would have been cheaper than the Dutch tea being smuggled into the colonies, even with the tax, which the colonial American consignees were obliged to pay. Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty put pressure on the consignees to not pay the tax and order the tea back to Britain. Governor Hutchinson, however, persuaded the consignees to stand firm. (His salary was derived from import duties and other taxes.) The customs officer refused to allow the vessels to leave the harbor without paying the duty.

The impasse had to be resolved, one way or another. The Crown or the patriots would need to give in. The Crown’s position was the status quo, and inaction. So the Americans took action, the only action open to them if they were to remain loyal to their convictions: they destroyed the tea as a demonstration that they would not pay the tax or submit to arbitrary Crown authority.

Lord North, prime minister, after receiving news of the Boston Tea Party and the actions of Americans in New York and Philadelphia, was faced with a dilemma linked to that authority: Use it, or lose it. He chose to use it, against the advice of some of his subministers, but in timid concordance with the outrage expressed in Parliament. He endorsed the Coercive Acts; that is, he agreed that reason must be answered with force. Of what use was power, if it were not exercised?

Why did the Americans decide to trespass on the three vessels and destroy their tea cargos when not only would they not have to pay the tax, but have cheaper tea, even when its retail price would have reflected a small percentage of the tax? Was it a matter, as some historians claim, of the legal, taxed tea underselling the illegal, smuggled tea? Did the patriots act on emotion, or on principle? Did they know, as apparently Lord North did not, that such an action would set in motion a course of events that would lead to war and independence?

Because the consignees were American, and because none of the colonies was represented in Parliament, it was a matter of taxation without representation. However, it was more than a matter of political principle. It was the application of a moral principle. If the colonists sanctioned the tea tax by paying it, it would be an acknowledgement that the Crown had a right to tax them on any commodity or service. The tea was merely a symbol. It could just as well have been any other commodity formerly covered by the repealed Townshend duties: glass, nails, or paint. The colonists did not grant that sanction over their lives. If they recognized the Crown’s authority to tax them, as the wisest among the colonists pointed out, that authority could just as well in time be extended over every particular of their lives.

Here the parallels end.

The original Tea Party was a revolt against the power of government to regulate one’s life and dictate how it would be conducted and at what price. It was an affirmation by the colonists that they owned their own lives, and retained the right to delegate necessary political power to their elected representatives. It was an affirmation of the moral principle that no government had a right to dispose of or expropriate one’s property, and, by implication, one’s life. All political principles -- good or bad, pro-freedom, or socialist, or fascist -- are grounded on specific moral principles.

Too many Americans today have forgotten that, or never learned it. They want a government that regulates their lives and ensures their well-being by enslaving others. They believe you have a duty to allow yourself to be enslaved for their sakes. They believe the government has a right or a duty to enslave you and everyone else for their sakes.

Another difference between the original Tea Party and the Tea Parties of 2009 is that while the Americans who took part in the original Tea Party disguised themselves as Indians to prevent identification by the authorities, we, the new Sons of Liberty, do not disguise ourselves to protect our identities. We dare any authority to take action against us for exercising our First Amendment right to free speech, which includes criticizing our government and accusing it of behaving like George III and Parliament.

There are Americans, in and out of political office, who would rather we shut up, or they will silence us. Democrats are reaching into their magic bag of dirty tricks to shut up or sideline our Tea Parties. They do this with the cooperation of most of the mainstream news media. Well, as one national Tea Party organizer noted: The Internet is the new mainstream news media.

The Crown’s response to the Boston Tea Party was to legislate the Coercive or Intolerable Acts as punishment. Today, the current administration, in partnership with Congress, has passed, and continues to pass, a Medusa’s head of acts vastly more extortionate and repressive than the original Coercive Acts. The Tea Parties have been a proper response to them. But remember that this orgy of legislation is only being piled on top of coercive acts passed by Congress over the last one hundred years.

It is time for Americans to understand that it is not merely a political fight they have on their hands, but a moral one. They must reject the moral code, altruism, that asks them to live for the sake of other men -- what else could TARP, or the takeover of General Motors, or of the tobacco industry, or of the energy industry, of the insurance industry, or of the health care business mean, but for you to sacrifice your right to your life and your money and property for the sake of others. Americans must proudly, loudly proclaim the selfish virtue of individual rights, which has been the source of all the wealth and prosperity that we enjoy but which Obama and Congress seek to destroy through socialist redistribution.

Americans must understand that what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence applies no less today than it did in July of 1776. To paraphrase his eternal words: When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object -- which today is complete control of the economy and our lives -- evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is our right to throw off such government -- or to vote its agents out of office, or to raise such a magnitude of protest that they dare not act lest they set in motion a similar train of events.

To further paraphrase Jefferson’s words: A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the president of a free people. Our princely president has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unfit for the office. And he is only the most recent in a long line of presidents who have demonstrated that unfitness.

There is another reason why the parallels divide between the original Tea Party and our own. The Founders did not pretend to have all the answers. They performed an astounding feat of political thought and action based on the received wisdom of the time. They left for future generations the task of correcting their admitted errors and doubts.

We, however, know what those errors and doubts were, and the solution to them. As every statist or totalitarian regime that ever existed was based on Plato’s view that men were just atoms in a collectivist state and who owed their existence to others, a fully consistent philosophy of reason exists that sanctions individual rights and man‘s existence for his own sake. That philosophy is Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. The Founders did not have the benefit of her advice. We have.

Let us not treat this day, or any future Tea Party or any other kind of protest, as just another tea party. Let us solemnly regard it as a chance and a first step to finish the American Revolution, to protest the omnivorous and indiscriminate appetite of federal power to consume everything in its path, to assert the right to our lives and property and futures, to work on a course of action that will ultimately correct the errors present in the Constitution and repeal its freedom-destroying amendments. Americans must think and act to finish the American Revolution -- before Obama and Congress finish this country, as they are determined to do.

Thank you.

Altruism, Collectivism and the British National Party

By Roberto Brian Sarrionandia from Tito's Blog,cross-posted by MetaBlog

My latest essay is up at the Ayn Rand Forum Blog,

Sunday 7th June, 2009, was a remarkable day in British politics, not least due to the election of two British National Party candidates, including the leader of the party Nick Griffin.

Their election caused outrage: mainstream politicians expressed resentment, journalists expressed disgust and liberal activists took to the streets in protest. It is clear to most that the BNP are an anti-intellectual, heavy handed and barely masked pool of racist and fascist sympathisers, similar in many ways to the National Socialist party of Germany.

Despite the obviously unjust nature of the BNP policy and ideology, the mainstream politicians, analysts and intellectuals find themselves utterly unable to defeat the ideas of the BNP. Why?

Go check it out!

Where Is The Best Country To Have A Small Business?

By Cindy from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Challenges Of Small Businesses Making Money In France


When I first started working in France over 20 years ago now, many multinationals had their European headquarters based in Paris. In the mid-1980’s I witnessed a definite trend. These multinationals were relocating their European headquarters to other European countries outside of France. Even with the expense of relocation, these companies got out of France to save money.

It is expensive to have a company in France. The big companies knew that 20 years ago and things have not really changed. They actually got worse with the advent of the 35 hour work week.

So why did I start a very small company here in France a year and a half ago?

Administration Mess

After spending last week sorting out errors made by the French administration, this is the question I’m asking myself today.

Small business owners do not have time to waste no matter where they live. We all work very long hours. So it is annoying when you have to drop everything to respond the representatives of the law who… well… made the mistake in the first place.

It is not politically correct here in France to complain about the errors made by the French administrative employees.

I’m not sure if it is politically correct to treat all company owners as money-hungry capitalists with distain… but it is common here in France and something I encounter frequently.

An Employee’s Society

This past week’s experience reminded me of a conversation I had with a French businessman of Arab descent who I met at the Paris Twestival earlier this year. Arabs have a different business outlook than French people. The conversation was interesting.

This gentleman said that “France is a country that promotes employees. Everything is set up to help and support the employees… to the detriment of the employers and business owners of all sizes”.

You do not need to live here long to see that business owners are not respected by the general French public. The French cultural hang-ups about being embarrassed of “making money” start to kick in. It is just not socially acceptable to acknowledge that you want to make money here in France.

The only way a business owner can get out of this embarrassing situation is to say that he wants to “create jobs”. This is noble… and sort of acceptable. But there is still a problem. You can still feel the undercurrents of distain towards people that want to make money.

Cultural Barriers

I remember when I lived through my first train strikes in Paris. You would never hear anyone on the news complain about the trains being on strike for long periods of time. The people interviewed would put on smiles and state their support of the strikers.

In recent years, I have noticed a few tight-lipped acknowledgments on the evening news that small businesses were forced to close down as a direct result of the prolonged train strikes. But this was still within a general atmosphere of camaraderie supporting the strikers.

In Search Of Small Business Paradise

It is not easy for small businesses everywhere. In France there are additional cultural hurdles for the small business owners compared to those in other countries.

Listening to friends with similar small businesses in England and Canada, the grass definitely looks greener over there.

The problem is that I have already lived in England and Canada.

• England was a fantastic experience professionally. But I got tired of the extremely limited choice of fresh fruit and vegetables available in the grocery stores during the winter months. And I worked right next to the 2 expensive department stores on Oxford Street that sold imported fresh produce!
• Coming from the Bahamas, the Canadian winters are more than a bit too much for me.

France does have a wonderful lifestyle to offer. But it is much better to experience France as an employee, with its:

• 5 weeks vacation
• 35 hour work weeks
• Laws of all kinds to protect the employees
• Fantastic social security system with long paid maternity leaves financed through the employers
• Almost 2 years of unemployment benefits if you are laid off

The hassles of having a small business in France takes up so much time, that I sometimes wonder if that is the government’s strategy to combat unemployment: to incite all businesses, big and small, to hire someone to deal with them.

So here is my question to you…

Where Is The Best Country To Have A Small Business?

If I were to relocate my small business, where would you suggest I relocate?

Here are the particulars: My business is location-independent, so I do not need a thriving local economy. Internet and banking services are very important as I have international clients. And that’s it.

Please let me know where you would set up your small business and why.

Image by bestfor / richard via Flickr

Cindy King is a Cross-Cultural Marketer & International Sales Strategist based in France. She uses her dual background in sales & marketing to help businesses improve their international sales conversion and develop country-specific international sales guides. Connect with her on Twitter @CindyKing.

A Means of Learning Grammar and Writing: Study Great Writings and Great Writers

By Michael Gold from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog



Excerpt from The Federalist No. 10

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.


Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


Excerpt from The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence by Stephen E. Lucas

Like the introduction, the next section of the Declaration--usually referred to as the preamble--is universal in tone and scope. It contains no explicit reference to the British- American conflict, but outlines a general philosophy of government that makes revolution justifiable, even meritorious:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Like the rest of the Declaration, the preamble is "brief, free of verbiage, a model of clear, concise, simple statement."(11) It capsulizes in five sentences--202--words what it took John Locke thousands of words to explain in his Second Treatise of Government. Each word is chosen and placed to achieve maximum impact. Each clause is indispensable to the progression of thought. Each sentence is carefully constructed internally and in relation to what precedes and follows. In its ability to compress complex ideas into a brief, clear statement, the preamble is a paradigm of eighteenth-century Enlightenment prose style, in which purity, simplicity, directness, precision, and, above all, perspicuity were the highest rhetorical and literary virtues. One word follows another with complete inevitability of sound and meaning. Not one word can be moved or replaced without disrupting the balance and harmony of the entire preamble.

The stately and dignified tone of the preamble--like that of the introduction--comes partly from what the eighteenth century called Style Periodique, in which, as Hugh Blair explained in his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, "the sentences are composed of several members linked together, and hanging upon one another, so that the sense of the whole is not brought out till the close." This, Blair said, "is the most pompous, musical, and oratorical manner of composing" and "gives an air of gravity and dignity to composition." The gravity and dignity of the preamble were reinforced by its conformance with the rhetorical precept that "when we aim at dignity or elevation, the sound [of each sentence] should be made to grow to the last; the longest members of the period, and the fullest and most sonorous words, should be reserved to the conclusion." None of the sentences of the preamble end on a single-syllable word; only one, the second (and least euphonious), ends on a two-syllable word. Of the other four, one ends with a four-syllable word ("security"), while three end with three-syllable words. Moreover, in each of the three-syllable words the closing syllable is at least a medium- length four-letter syllable, which helps bring the sentences to "a full and harmonious close."(12)
...
c 1989 by Stephen E. Lucas
Stephen E. Lucas is professor of communication arts at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. The present essay is derived from a more comprehensive study, "Justifying America: The Declaration of Independence as a Rhetorical Document," in Thomas W. Benson, ed., American Rhetoric: Context and Criticism (1989).


I am in awe of the Declaration and the Federalist No. 10. The more you read and study them, the more you get out of them.

Record Number of Students Enter the Ayn Rand Institute's "Anthem" Essay Contest

By from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Record Number of Students Enter the Ayn Rand Institute’s “Anthem” Essay Contest

Irvine, CA, July 16, 2009--More than 16,000 high school students, a record number, have entered the Ayn Rand Institute’s annual “Anthem” essay contest, which will award the winners a total of $14,000 in prizes.

First published in 1938, “Anthem” is a heroic and inspiring story about the triumph of the individual’s independent spirit. “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.

Open to 8th, 9th and 10th graders, 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.

According to Marilee Dahl, ARI’s education manager, “Judges look for writing that is clear, articulate and logically organized. Winning essays must demonstrate an outstanding grasp of the philosophic meaning of ‘Anthem.’”

Since 1985 more than 200,000 high school students from around the world have entered ARI essay contests and received more than a half million dollars in cash awards.

The first prize winner for this year’s “Anthem” essay contest will take home $2,000; 5 second-prize winners will each receive $500; and 10 third-prize winners will each receive $200. In addition, 45 finalists will each get $50 and every one of the 175 semifinalists will get $30.

More information about this year’s competition can be found at http://aynrand.org/contests.

----------------

To interview Ms. Marilee Dahl or to learn more about ARI’s educational programs, please contact media@aynrand.org

The One Minute Case against the Existence of God

By heroic@gmail.com (David Veksler) from One Minute Cases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A religion is an organized system of belief, most often assuming the existence of a higher power such as a supernatural almighty deity or an ultimate truth, first designed to enlighten humanity on the act of creation and produce specific prophecies that will come true if certain requirements are met. This case argues that supernatural deities do not exist, which entails the fact that all major religions are false and outdated phenomena outstripped by science, serving little other use than hampering additional scientific progress.

The cosmological argument

Some religious individuals argue that whatever begins to exist has a cause and since nothing causes itself, there has to be a First Cause, namely God. There are several objections to this argument, some of them being as following;

• What caused the First Cause? By making use of the cosmological argument one presupposes that an uncaused effect exists, enabling it to cause a chain of effects without being caused itself. Seeing that the argument is reliant upon the premise that all effects have a cause it is in consequence invalid.
• The First Cause is by no means equal to a deity. Even though the origin of the universe remains scientifically unexplained, it doesn’t justify supernatural religious claims.

The Teleological argument [Intelligent Design]

This argument states that some phenomena are too complex, or too apparently purposeful, to have occurred randomly. Therefore, these phenomena must have been designed by an intelligent or purposeful being (God).

- Who designed the designer? If an intelligent designer only is able to design irreducibly complex units, then an even more intelligent designer is necessary to design the original designer. This entails an infinite chain of designers. To counter this counter-argument some individuals make use of the cosmological argument. However, as explained above, this argument fails because it omits why a designer can be undersigned while the universe cannot.

William Paley’s watchmaker analogy makes use of this argument, and is to this date one of the most famous teleological arguments. He argues that there are structures which cannot function unless all substructures are present. By asserting that each substructure constitutes no benefit alone, evolutionary theory is unable to explain the substructures presence. Since the substructures presence cannot be explained, the whole structures presence cannot be explained either. Counter-arguments are as following:

• There is a probability that all substructures came into existence simultaneously.
• Substructures may have changed in function. A gradual replacement by several advantageous substructures’ function can lead to the evolution of structures claimed to be irreducibly complex.

The omnipotence paradox

Most, if not all, monotheistic religions claim the existence of an omnipotent God. This argument leaves the concept of omnipotence as a mere paradox unable to exist in a logical universe. If a deity is in fact omnipotent, then he is able to create a rock he himself cannot lift. Since he cannot lift the rock he just created he is not omnipotent.

Argument from free will

All monotheistic religions claim their god to be omniscient, and at the same time claim to have been given free will by the very same god. These two concepts are incompatible. Here is why: An omniscient being knows everything, including the future will of his supposed free willed- designees. Since the will is already known, it cannot be free at the same time.

Other[inductive] arguments state that a complete being (God) must also be dead or non-existing in order to be fully complete. Furthermore, some conclude that since most theistic religions eventually were regarded as untrue, all theistic religions are most likely to be untrue. Stephen F. Roberts formulated this beautifully by saying:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

See Also

• The One Minute Case For Atheism

Objectivists at the Boston Tea Party

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Yaron Brook and John Lewis spoke at the Boston Tea Party on July 4th. Here they are, on YouTube:

John Lewis, Part 1



John Lewis, Part 2



Yaron Brook, Part 1



Yaron Brook, Part 2



John Ridpath spoke earlier in the day, but I didn't see it on YouTube, but if you have a link, please post it in the comments.

What is Objectivism to You?

By Roderick Fitts from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

"What is Objectivism?" A couple of years ago, I asked this question shortly after reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Later, I would hear and read about future students of Objectivism asking the same question, and I often would assist them in finding the answer. For that question, Ayn Rand herself gave several answers of varying length and complexity, spanning from John Galt's lengthy speech and a plethora of non-fiction essays, all the way down to single, concise sentences packed full of meaning.

My personal favorite of her answers is that Objectivism is "a philosophy for living on earth." Honestly, the first time I read that sentence, I was simultaneously amazed and amused. Amazed, because I had never heard anyone advertise a set of ideas as being needed to live on Earth -- that kind of thing was unheard of in my experience. Amused, because at the time I thought it was a silly thing to say or write down. (With the level of sarcasm-lovers in our postmodern society, I seriously doubt I was the only one who had that reaction to it.)

Of course, it's not my favorite description of Objectivism because of my initial reaction to it -- rather, it's my favorite because as I learned more about it, amazingly enough, I started to believe that the sentence was true. By reading and talking about the philosophy over time, I became convinced that ideas and the subject of philosophy was important for everyone to learn about, and that Rand's philosophy was the most important of all for people to recognize and consider. As I thought about the distasteful state of the world, and of the tenets of the philosophy, I came to personally believe that it was necessary in order to live in the world, almost as if my thinking were paying homage to her own.

As I start my third year as a student of Objectivism, I once again ask myself what Objectivism is. I think John Ridpath gave an interesting indirect answer, in the Q & A of his 1989 lecture "Religion Vs. Man": "[Objectivism] is [a] really honest and serious attempt to understand the world and what the implications of all of our understanding are." What he said is almost exactly how I would describe Objectivism now, and will probably do so for some time into the future.

And so now I ask: what is Objectivism to you?

Feynman on Honors

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Physicist Richard Feynman explains why he doesn't like honors:

"I don't like honors. I'm appreciated for the work that I did, and for people who appreciate it, and I notice that other physicists use my work. I don't need anything else. I don't think there's any sense to anything else. I don't see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish Academy decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize. I've already got the prize. The prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it. Those are the real things. The honors are unreal to me. I don't believe in honors. It bothers me, honors..."

This is a good gut-level response of a man who is a primary creator of value, as opposed to a second-hander.

Ayn Rand on Grammar

By Michael Gold from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Ms. Rand believed grammar was important, very important -- I'd say, an essential part of reasoning, and therefore, I'd add, of being objective and practicing the Objectivist virtues.

Read these excerpts (from pp. 99-104 of The Art of Nonfiction by Ayn Rand, ed. Robert Mayhew, a Plume Book, Penguin Publishers, (c) Estate of Ayn Rand, 2001), think about what Peikoff's OPAR says, and see if you agree with my claims:

One of the most important applications of the Objectivist attitude toward reason is grammar. The ability to think precisely, and thus to write precisely, cannot be achieved without observing grammatical rules.

Grammar has the same purpose as concepts. The rules of grammar are rules for using concepts precisely. ... The grammar of all language tells us how to organize our concepts so as to make them communicate a specific, unequivocal meaning.
...
[B]y the time you reach college, you should realize how important [grammatical] rules are. Therefore, if you know why we should fight for reason, and for the right view of concepts, then let us -- on the same grounds -- have a crusade for grammar.
...
The difficulty here is that most of you today [meaning most Americans in 1969...and therefore, I'm sure, a fortiori to Americans today. (See Ms. Rand's comments on p. 99.) -- MG] are so used to a subjective shorthand that you lose the distinction between your own inner context and an objective statement.
...
If you have forgotten your grade school lessons, get a good primer on grammar -- preferably an old one -- and revive your knowledge. You will be surprised how much more important it appears to you now than it did when you were a child.
...
If you want to express your ideas, particularly ideas based on Objectivism, learn clarity -- and that means concepts, grammar, punctuation.

We should study writing and grammar each for our own selfish interests, but if we are going to engage in activism, there is all the more reason to master writing and grammar.

Here are some recommended books:

The Art of Nonfiction

Writing and Thinking by Foerster and Steadman

Rex Barks by Phyllis Davenport (sentence diagramming)

A Dictionary of Modern English Usage by H.W. Fowler (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926) -- recommended by Ms. Rand in Art of Nonfiction; Mr. Mayhew says to avoid the third edition. Wikipedia has information on the book and its editions.

You can also find some of these books on Amazon.com or Abebooks.com. I know Fowler's Dictionary is on Abe -- I just purchased four copies.

Forgot to mention and recommend Principles of Grammar by Dr. Leonard Peikoff!!

Two Cracks to Slip Through

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

A venomous rant by Maureen Dowd shows us exactly how and why Judge Sonia Sotomayor's opponents haven't a prayer of stopping her from reaching the Supreme Court -- barring a "meltdown" on her part or a near-miraculous epiphany about the proper role of a Supreme Court justice on theirs.

Two popular misconceptions -- one about the proper, non-cognitive role of emotions and one about the proper role of a Supreme Court justice -- are shared by her proponents and opponents alike, shielding her from the criticism she deserves now.

First, we have the soul-body dichotomy, which manifests here as the notion that reason and emotions are opposites, and that our choice between them is either-or.

Despite the best efforts of Republicans to root out any sign that Sonia Sotomayor has emotions that color her views on the law, the Bronx Bomber kept a robotic mask in place.

A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction are out to trip her up.

Don't get hung up on the sexist and racist slur against males of European descent. That's just a smear against Dowd's real targets -- people having Western values. She makes her smear by arbitarily equating them with various negative stereotypes of Republicans. (Why else would race and sex matter?) The important thing here is the glee that Dowd shows about how easily -- if we take her assessment at face value -- that Sotomayor is foiling the Republican attempts to call her out on a vice that Dowd herself admits she has. Sotomayor is succeeding simply by acting "robotic."

How robotic? Take a gander:

She even used a flat tone when talking about the "horrific tragedy" of 9/11, when she was living near the World Trade Center.

Even setting aside the mislabeling of this atrocity as a "tragedy," this is bizarre. Did this not anger and frighten Sonia Sotomayor, herself? Does Judge Sotomayor not care about the victims of those events? And is she not confident enough in the justice of the laws and founding principles of this nation to think that, within her prospective role as a Supreme Court justice, she would be doing her part -- whatever her decisions -- to ensure that America remains strong enough at least to live to fight another day?

The ease with which Sotomayor's ruse seems to be working can be explained by the acceptance on both sides of this debate of the soul-body dichotomy. Both see reason and emotion as opposites, with each side paying lip-service at different times to the idea that either reason is man's tool of cognition or that emotions are. This time, the conservatives are holding the banner of reason (although often upside down), while the left believes emotions are needed in applying or interpreting the law.

So the conservatives are parroting without grasping the content of charges like those made by ARI's Tom Bowden that Sotomayor is unqualified for this position due to her belief that objectivity and impartiality are impossible. They know enough to try to trip her up on the grounds that she will rule based ultimately on her emotions, but, failing to understand the true nature of emotions, don't see her iciness as the red flag that it is.

Emotions are not tools of cognition, but they do reflect one's values and motivate one's actions. A sitting judge must apply logic rigorously to all questions that come up, but this does not preclude anger at massive injustice or harm to the country one is sworn to protect. Reason and emotion can and -- when one's principles are objective -- will end up on the same side.

And that brings up the second point.

The sould-body dichotomy is just the start of the difficulties of Sotomayor's senatorial adversaries. The other "crack" our suddenly snake-like nominee is slithering through is that between originalism (which is widely mistaken for judicial objectivity) and "ruling from the bench" (a dangerously imprecise term for non-objectivity). Besides explaining this better than I could, Tara Smith succinctly shows why this is happening:

While each of these reasons may help to explain Originalism's appeal, none of them captures the heart of the issue. The deeper reason that Originalism will not die, I think, is that it has staked out the moral high ground, championing the objectivity of interpretation that is essential to the ideal of the rule of law. Anything other than fidelity to the written words, it seems, surrenders us to the rule of mere men (the individual justices on the bench).

Or so things would appear.

What I will suggest is that the very objectivity which explains Originalism's appeal is misunderstood by Originalists themselves. And part of the reason that criticisms have not inflicted more crippling damage is that the leading alternatives also suffer from confusions about appropriate standards of objectivity in the legal domain -- which many people sense, I think, and which sends them back to the apparently safer harbor of Originalism. [bold added]

Writing elsewhere, Smith notes a big problem with originalism:

The charge of "judicial activism" typically condemns proper activity on the part of judges along with improper activity. It has become dangerously commonplace to equate a judge's support for overturning a law with pernicious activism. Prevailing wisdom holds that we can identify "activists" simply by counting up the number of times a judge rules against existing laws or government practices. Notice that by that logic, the only way for a judge to avoid overstepping his authority is to engage in no activity--to simply rubberstamp whatever the legislature and other agencies of government serve up. What, by this reasoning, is the point of having a Supreme Court? Some laws should be struck down. ... Judges who so rule are acting responsibly and fulfilling their function. [bold added]

And she later explains what ought to be going on in hearings like this:

The salient question in assessing any nominee, then, is not whether a judge takes action, but the factors that guide his actions. To be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a person must, at minimum, understand three basic facts: First, that individual rights are broad principles defining the individual's freedom of action. The familiar rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness subsume a vast array of particular exercises of this freedom, some explicitly named in the constitution (e.g., the freedom of speech) and some not (the right to travel). Second, he must understand that the government's sole function is to protect individuals' freedom of action. As Jefferson explained, it is "to secure these rights, [that] governments are instituted among men." Third, he must recognize that our government properly acts exclusively by permission. Articles I, II and III specify the powers of the three branches of government and the 10th Amendment expressly decrees that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the states or by the people. The government, in other words, may do only what it is legally authorized to do. [bold added]

But for this to happen, someone in the Senate needs to understand what qualifies someone to sit on the Supreme Court. Until then, Dowd will get to crow about her inept heroine parrying even more inept blows:

The judge's full retreat from the notion that a different life experience is valuable was more than necessary and somewhat disappointing. But, as any clever job applicant knows, you must obscure as well as reveal, so she sidestepped the dreaded empathy questions -- even though that's why the president wants her.

"We apply law to facts," she told Kyl. "We don’t apply feelings to facts."

To an originalist, that reply is the sound of the oven timer going off. To someone interested in objective law who understands that the law must sometimes be interpreted in light of objective principles, that's the signal that some more time and a thermometer are needed for that goose.

During the rest of her column, Dowd wallows about in her smear of "white Republican men," making the point that many Republicans are, under the skin, also really just fellow emotionalists. (I agree with her there.) Her point in doing so is to is to make sure that reason never rears its head -- ugly to her -- as a serious threat to the left again. She wants us all to think -- no, to feel -- that objectivity is a mere figment. (I emphatically and confidently disagree with her about that.)

-- CAV

The Demanding Altruist

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I was pretty floored by this letter in a recent Miss Manners column:

Dear Miss Manners:

Several years ago, I volunteered at an elementary school and became friendly with a mother and son who both taught there. My health has since deteriorated to the point where I am in a wheelchair. I left my volunteer job and the mother and son moved on.

In the eight years since we worked together, the mother has sent me jokes and prayers through e-mail, but seldom a personal message. I have not heard from the son in at least four years. Nothing at all until I received his wedding invitation.

I sent my regrets, and a note saying I would send a gift when I was out of the hospital. That day, I was cleared for surgery, and I spent three days in a hospital and four weeks in a rehab facility.

While I was unable to get my e-mail, the mother of the groom sent me four e-mails reminding me to send her son "something to honor his special day." I then received a group e-mail with a few wedding pictures, so everyone she sent it to was able to read her message that I could finally get her son a gift, and how was surgery? I could also see that she had abased another recipient.

I finally wrote her that I'd had enough. They claim to be devout Christians, yet they are hounding me for a gift. I explained that being in a wheelchair, it is difficult to get out, and I was sorry I didn't go shopping.

Then her son took over. He ignored my physical limitations and went on and on about how he gave me two months and I should have had plenty of time to buy him something. I have not heard from the man in four years, and then I receive an invitation to his wedding. Do I owe him a gift?

Miss Manners, as expected, responded quite reasonably, writing the following:

As a symbol of your affectionate relationship? The next step in such a campaign is to threaten to break your knees. When this happens, Miss Manners recommends involving the police. In the meantime, she suggests blocking or deleting their e-mail.

That's right, but it doesn't speak to the kind of vicious moral psychology underlying the actions of this young man and his mother.

I'm not the slightest bit surprised that these people are "devout Christians." In fact, even apart from that claim, I would have bet $100 that they were serious advocates of altruism. They are not hypocrites, either, as most people would suppose. They practice what they preach -- even in this instance. How so?

The altruist denies the value of his own existence. He regards the welfare of others as of greater moral significance than his own: he regards himself as morally obliged to sacrifice his concerns, his values, and even his life for the sake of others. (That's the definition of altruism: it's other-ism.) He does not hold that view due to some particular imperfection or degradation unique to himself. Instead, he denigrates the self as such: he regards every person as obliged to do the same. (That's ultimately incoherent, but I'll leave that aside for now.) Consequently, the serious altruist will develop the most disgusting kind of contempt for other people. He values them as little as he values himself -- meaning: not at all. So if another person pursues his own values rather than sacrificing himself as demanded, that person must be condemned as immoral. Morality requires every person to forgo his own values for the sake of others. And so you have the strange phenomena of committed altruists demanding sacrifices from other people to satisfy their most petty whims -- and condemning them as selfish for failing to do. That's not hypocrisy: it's the twisted logic of altruism.

In contrast, the rational egoist knows the value of his own life -- and his own responsibility for achieving his happiness. He knows that every other person can and ought to take the same perspective on his own life. He knows that he only profits from interacting with others to the extent that they do so. He wants other people to act as rational egoists in pursuit of their own personal values. Consequently, he treats other people with respect for doing so -- never as his personal serfs.

It is the egoist, not the altruist, who values other people.

A Recycled Encyclical?

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

A conservative blogger I follow bemoans the fact that a recent papal encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, opens Barack Obama up to attack from the left on economic issues by the Pope. Between the gloating of leftist E.J. Dionne and the open evasion of Robert A. Sirico in the Wall Street Journal, I am reminded of Ayn Rand's essay, "Requiem for Man," in which she responded to Populorum Progressio, by Pope Paul VI.

First, we'll get the gloating out of the way.

Benedict's letter had some good things to say about the market system, but only if it is tempered by both "distributive justice and social justice." He thus spoke approvingly of "the redistribution of wealth" -- not a phrase currently on many American lips -- and caused free-market conservatives to blanch with his call for a "world political authority" to oversee the global economy in the name of "the common good."

Remember: "Capitalism" is fine only as long as we're talking about elements of a market economy subordinated to government conrol, and that's the best this anti-secular Pope can say for it.

And now for the open evasion.

The context [of this encyclical] is of course a global economic crisis -- a crisis that's taken place in a moral vacuum, where the love of truth has been abandoned in favor of a crude materialism. The pope urges that this crisis become "an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future."

Yet his encyclical contains no talk of seeking a third way between markets and socialism. Words like greed and capitalism make no appearance here, despite press headlines following the publication of the encyclical earlier this week. People seeking a blueprint for the political restructuring of the world economy won't find it here. But if they look to this document as a means for the moral reconstruction of the world's cultures and societies, which in turn influence economic events, they will find much to reflect upon.

Never mind that one cannot have a political-economic system "in a moral vacuum," and that the erosion of capitalism over the past century has occurred precisely because the moral philosophy of altruism cannot support capitalism, the political expression of egoism, the morality of rational self-interest: The pope didn't use the word "capitalism."

Also, we're supposed to pretend that the government policies that precipitated the financial crisis were formulated in a moral vacuum and that businessmen somehow function in a moral vacuum -- unless of course, they're being immoral according to the distorting light of altruism.

Ayn Rand's response (search term: "Dark Ages") to Populorum Progressio is just as apt for this, because the very same issues -- within the encyclical and within America's craven conservative movement -- apply today.

The encyclical is the voice of the Dark Ages, rising again in today's intellectual vacuum, like a cold wind whistling through the empty streets of an abandoned civilization.

Unable to resolve a lethal contradiction, the conflict between individualism and altruism, the West is giving up. When men give up reason and freedom, the vacuum is filled by faith and force.

No social system can stand for long without a moral base. Project a magnificent skyscraper being built on quicksands: while men are struggling upward to add the hundredth and two-hundredth stories, the tenth and twentieth are vanishing, sucked under by the muck. That is the history of capitalism, of its swaying, tottering attempt to stand erect on the foundation of the altruist morality.

It's either-or. If capitalism's befuddled, guilt-ridden apologists do not know it, two fully consistent representatives of altruism do know it: Catholicism and communism.

And there's more where that came from.

When Michael Moore's next "documentary" -- allegedly about capitalism -- comes out, don't forget that he's Catholic, too.

But be sure to remember as well that the title of Ayn Rand's eloquent defense of capitalism is Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

-- CAV

Fight for Your Rights

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Last week, Front Range Objectivist Hannah Krening published an excellent letter to the editor in the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Time to fight for your rights

I am not a politician or a government bureaucrat. I am a musician who cannot escape the point that our country is at a turning point. There's an old Reggae song with these words:

"Stand up! Stand up! Stand up for your rights!

"Don't give up ... don't give up the fight!"

We know that we love our country for the freedom, the rights that are our birthright, and some of us believe they are threatened, but what are rights? Is the right to pursue our own happiness and keep the fruits of our labor the same as a "right" to education, government assistance, health care? Why or why not?

Where do rights come from? Are they privileges handed out by a benevolent government, God-given, or do they exist because of our nature as human beings?

What are the principles, the ideas behind our Founders' willingness to fight for their rights? What principles could be so deeply understood as to inspire them to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend them?

A short message cannot give you answers, so instead I want to call you to the battle of ideas. To know the answers to these kinds of questions we must rise above our education and work to get a deeper understanding of that which we know we are losing.

If we disagree with current trends and legislation, it's not enough to vent, and just feel good when we hear the words "freedom" and "rights." We must carry on where our Founders left off, and not give up the vigilance, the fight. Only if we know HOW to face those who would further erode our rights will we ever be effective.

We have great documents, great thinkers and even great fiction to fuel our battle. The words of our Founders, of Ayn Rand, and of living writers such as Edward Cline and Amity Schlaes are well worth our time.

I hope we can honor the Founders and our country by a pledge to hone our thinking and actions. We need to regain our understanding of the roots of freedom, and then "Stand up! Stand up! Stand up for our rights!"

Hannah Krening, Larkspur

Great job, Hannah!

Atlas Shrugged Selling in Record Numbers

By from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Atlas Shrugged Selling in Record Numbers

Irvine, CA, July 13, 2009--Penguin USA, publisher of the four American editions of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, has reported that in the first half of 2009 it shipped well over 300,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged to distributors, bookstores, bookstore chains, online resellers, libraries, businesses and other institutions.

As Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, noted, “Considering that in the first half of 2008 Penguin shipped about 85,000 copies, the spectacular jump to 300,000 copies in the first half of 2009 represents an increase of almost 250 percent in gross sales of Atlas Shrugged!

Reports from industry sources indicate that more copies of Atlas Shrugged were sold in book stores and by online resellers in the first half of 2009 than in all of 2008, when a new all-time annual record was established with more than 200,000 copies of the novel sold in the United States.

“The spike in sales of Atlas Shrugged more than a half century after its initial publication is truly remarkable,” Dr. Brook pointed out. “Annual sales of Atlas Shrugged have been increasing for decades to a level not seen even in Ayn Rand’s lifetime. Sales of the U.S. paperback editions averaged around 70,000 copies a year in the 1980s, and doubled to about 140,000 copies a year in the current decade. And the pace of sales has been accelerating recently, reaching an all-time high during the novel’s 50th anniversary in 2007, surpassing this mark in 2008, and on course to set another record in 2009.”

Almost 7,000,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold since it was first published in 1957.

---------------- 
 

 

Record Number of Students Enter the Ayn Rand Institute's "Fountainhead" Essay Contest

By from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Record Number of Students Enter the Ayn Rand Institute’s “Fountainhead” Essay Contest

Irvine, CA, July 7, 2009--More than 7,000 high school students, a record number, have entered the Ayn Rand Institute's annual "Fountainhead" essay contest, which will award the winners a total of $43,250 in prizes.

First published in 1943, The Fountainhead tells the heroic and fascinating story of Howard Roark, an intransigently independent architect who stands against society's conventions and refuses to compromise his standards in work and in life.

Open to 11th and 12th graders, 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.

According to Marilee Dahl, ARI's education manager, "Judges look for writing that is clear, articulate and logically organized. Winning essays must demonstrate an outstanding grasp of the philosophic meaning of The Fountainhead."

Since 1985 more than 200,000 high school students from around the world have entered ARI essay contests and received more than a half a million dollars in prizes.

The first prize winner for the “Fountainhead” essay contest this year will take home $10,000; 5 second-prize winners will receive $2,000 each, and 10 third-prize winners will receive $1,000 each. In addition, 45 finalists will get $100 each and every one of the 175 semifinalists will get $50.

More information about this year's competition can be found at http://aynrand.org/contests.

--------------

To interview Ms. Marilee Dahl or for more information on ARI’s educational programs, please contact media@aynrand.org

 

It’s only logical…

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

Have you noticed that stores are placing environmentalist and faith-related products in the same section?

The New Tea Parties: An Overture to Reclaiming Our Lost Freedom

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

This is an adaptation of an address I will make at the Richmond, Virginia Tea Party on July 25, 2009:

First, some background. On December 16, 1773, Bostonians and other locals roughly dressed as Mohawk Indians, boarded three American merchant vessels in the harbor, the Dartmouth, the Eleanor and the Beaver recently arrived from Britain with 342 chests of tea, and tossed the chests into the harbor. The tea nominally belonged to colonial American consignees, by appointment by the British East India Company (two of them sons of the royal governor, Thomas Hutchinson). The Tea Act of 1773 replaced the repealed Townshend Act duties on other commodities, and gave the East India Company a legal monopoly to hire other merchantmen to take the tea to North America.

The three-pence per pound tax remained on the tea. This tea would have been cheaper than the Dutch tea being smuggled into the colonies, even with the tax, which the colonial American consignees were obliged to pay. Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty put pressure on the consignees to not pay the tax and order the tea back to Britain. Hutchinson, however, persuaded the consignees to stand firm. (His salary was derived from import duties and other taxes.) The customs officer refused to allow the vessels to leave the harbor without paying the duty.

The impasse had to be resolved, one way or another. The Crown or the patriots would need to give in. The Crown’s position was the status quo, and inaction. So the Americans took action, the only action open to them if they were to remain loyal to their convictions: they destroyed the tea as a demonstration that they would not pay the tax or submit to arbitrary Crown authority.

Lord North, prime minister, after receiving news of the Boston Tea Party and the actions of Americans in New York and Philadelphia, was faced with a dilemma linked to that authority: Use it, or lose it. He chose to use it, against the advice of some of his subministers, but in timid concordance with the outrage expressed in Parliament. He endorsed the Coercive Acts; that is, he agreed that reason must be answered with force. Of what use was power, if it were not exercised?

Why did the Americans decide to trespass on the three vessels and destroy their tea cargoes when not only would they not have to pay the tax, but have cheaper tea, even when its retail price would have reflected a small percentage of the tax? Was it a matter, as some historians claim, of the legal, taxed tea underselling the illegal, smuggled tea? Did the patriots act on emotion, or on principle? Did they know, as apparently Lord North did not, that such an action would set in motion a course of events that would lead to war and independence?

Because the consignees were American, and because none of the colonies was represented in Parliament, it was a matter of taxation without representation. However, it was more than a matter of political principle. It was the application of a moral principle. If the colonists sanctioned the tea tax by paying it, it would be an acknowledgement that the Crown had a right to tax them on any commodity or service. The tea was merely a symbol. It could just as well have been any other commodity formerly covered by the repealed Townshend duties: glass, nails, or paint. The colonists did not grant that sanction over their lives. If they recognized the Crown’s authority to tax them, the wisest among the colonists pointed out, that authority could just as well in time be extended over every particular of their lives.

The original Tea Party was a revolt against the power of government to regulate one’s life and dictate how it would be conducted and at what price. It was an affirmation by the colonists that they owned their own lives, and retained the right to delegate necessary political power to their elected representatives. It was an affirmation of the moral principle that no government had a right to dispose of or expropriate one’s property, and, by implication, one’s life. All political principles -- good or bad, pro-freedom, or socialist, or fascist -- are grounded on specific moral principles.

One ostensive difference between the original Tea Party and the Tea Parties of 2009 is that while the Americans who took part in the original Tea Party disguised themselves as Indians to prevent identification by the authorities, we, the new Sons of Liberty, do not disguise ourselves to protect our identities. We dare any authority to take action against us for exercising our First Amendment right to free speech, which includes criticizing our government and accusing it of behaving like George III and Parliament.

The Crown’s response to the Boston Tea Party was to legislate the Coercive or Intolerable Acts as punishment. Today, the current administration, in partnership with Congress, has passed, and continues to pass, a Medusa’s head of acts vastly more extortionate and repressive than the original Coercive Acts, and the Tea Parties have been a response to them.

It is time for Americans to understand that it is not merely a political fight they have on their hands, but a moral one. They must reject the moral code that asks them to live for the sake of other men -- what else could TARP, or the takeover of General Motors, or of the tobacco industry, or of the energy industry, of the insurance industry, or of the health care business mean, but for you to sacrifice your right to your life and your money and property for the sake of others -- and proudly, loudly proclaim the selfish virtue of individual rights, which has been the source of all the wealth and prosperity that we enjoy but which Obama and Congress seek to destroy through socialist redistribution.

Americans must understand that what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence applies no less today than it did in July of 1776. To paraphrase his eternal words: When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object -- which is complete control of the economy and our lives -- evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is our right to throw off such government -- or to vote its agents out of office, or to raise such a protest that they dare not act lest they set in motion a similar train of events.

To further paraphrase Jefferson’s words: A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the president of a free people. Our princely president has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unfit for the office.

Let us not treat this day, or any future Tea Party or any other kind of protest, as just another tea party. Let us solemnly regard it as a chance and a first step to finish the American Revolution, to protest the omnivorous and indiscriminate appetite of federal power to consume everything in its path, to assert the right to our lives and property and futures, to work on a course of action that will ultimately correct the errors present in the Constitution and repeal its freedom-destroying amendments. Americans must act to finish the American Revolution -- before Obama and Congress finish this country.

Summer Reading Campaign

By Roberto Brian Sarrionandia from Tito's Blog,cross-posted by MetaBlog


I'm proud to announce the Summer Reading Campaign over at The Prometheus Initiative.

All of Ayn Rand's novels are available for £3.50 for a limited time, in an effort to get British people reading Ayn Rand this summer.

Check out the offer page for more details.

OCON – Day 1 & 2

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

It’s lunch time on Day two of 2009 Objectivist Conference. I had intended to blog daily but alas, yesterday was so full, I’ve not gotten to the post until today. In essence that is the theme concretized. This is my third conference and what always amazes me is the level of intellectual stimulation, through presentations, dinners, and the casual side conversations that arise spontaneously.

Highlights from the first few days of Session #1

Lectures

1. Craig Biddle’s course on Metaphysical Law and Moral Rights. This is a phenomenal course. Biddle essentially develops Rand’s basis for individual rights, as contrasted with the Founders. In essence day 1 he analyzed the philosophical basis behind the lines in the Declaration of Independence, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights…” Self-evidency and endowment by their creator are not accidents. They trace back to Locke in his ideas of “natural law” and Jefferson’s conception of “moral sense.” Starting with Day 2 he masterfully develops Rand’s contrasting basis for rights from the facts of reality. Biddle’s case is clear and well presented, and I highly recommend this course.
2. Dr. Tara Smith’s lecture on Atlas Shrugged, entitled No Room for Ceasar: Good and Evil in Atlas Shrugged examines the either / or nature of key hero’s decisions in Atlas Shrugged. It is a powerful look at how the facts of reality give rise to absolute decisions, and how one cannot shirk from making those types of decisions in leading a fulfilling life.
3. Finally, today Dr. Onkar Ghate presents a tremendous analysis of the philosophical basis of the “separation between church and state” essentially articulating what is meant by the term, and tracing it’s roots back to Locke’s proper conception of rights, and the role of government and the church. He then illustrates how both today’s religionists (“freedom of religion”), and secularists (“freedom from religion”)make incorrect and unfounded arguments for the meaning of this separation. Dr. Ghate is brilliant and this lecture shows it. Highly recommended!

Themes

A few themes I see in this year’s conference

• Several courses are analyzing Locke’s influence on philosophy. Biddle examines Locke’s incorrect conceptions of natural law, and the divine basis for rights, while Dr. Ghate examines his very well formulated concept of the separation between church and state.
• The courses are increasingly presented in a way that does not require a background in Objectivism to be clear. Biddle’s development of Rand’s idea of rights is inductively based and relies at each step upon observations of the facts of reality.
• The passion exuded by both speakers and the attendees gives on a sense of how importantly ideas are taken, and how clearly and powerfully those ideas are presented. Whether its Tara Smith forcefully entreating us to commit to live our own lives, or Craig Biddle beginning to tear up as he relates the story of an 11 year-old girl whom the FDA restricted from obtaining experimental cancer drugs, as a way to show that force is anti-life, you see real concrete evidence of the power of ideas and philosophy in living on earth.

Social

1. Opening Banquet. I always go to this, as it’s a great chance to meet everyone at the start of the conference, and to meet new people as well. I had a great dinner with Paul and Diana Hsieh, and fellow OAC classmate Brian Olive. Paul and I continued a discussion we’d started via email on methods and tips to help get some of my newly written op-eds published.
2. Dinners. I had dinner last night with my roomy Ray Niles, Richard and Lisa Salsman, and John Lewis and his wife. It was fantastic! Good food, good wine and certainly fantastic intellectual conversation.
3. I’ve gotten the opportunity to meet several objectivists who I knew only online or who were fellow OAC students. It’s always a pleasure to meet people who I’ve only known electronically, and finally put a personality to the ideas we’ve exchanged.

Communications

Just a quick reminder that there should be several bloggers posting on Ocon as well. I saw Paul Hsieh writing a post in lecture just this morning so Noodlefood should have something new. Also, multiple OCON attendees including myself are Twittering their activities at OCON. You can follow them all if you look for the #OCON tag.

STATUE OF LIBERTY CROWN

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog


Graphic by Robert Tracy of Illustrated Ideas.

In the news: Lady Liberty's crown reopens for 4th of July, 8 years after 9/11 attacks closed her to visitors. Matt Lysiak, NY Daily News.

From the Whitehouse: Lady Liberty's Crown Opens on 4th of July. Katelyn Sabochik, Director of New Media for the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Read Ari Herzog's post, How @StatueLibrtyNPS Celebrates July IVth.

From my post, THE STATUE OF LIBERTY REOPENS:

Thanks to Robert Tracy (Illustrated Ideas) for creating this image:


Related: My posts, VISIT TO THE BIG APPLE NYC IN 2009 and LIVE FREE OR DIE.

As Far as the Eye Can See

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

During a flight over West Texas last week, I spotted something very odd from the window. At first glance, it seemed to be a hilly subdivision, with roads winding through some hills.

I've seen things like that plenty of times, but something drew my attention back to the ground. There was something funny about this "subdivision." What was with the light poles?

Or were they light poles?

I took a closer look and saw that I was actually looking at massive wind farm, most likely part of the Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center, based on my best guess of our flight path. Its size, to which even the image shown here can't do justice, was mind-boggling. It stretched all the way to the horizon and I probably spent several minutes looking at it, stunned at how huge it is, before simply becoming bored with it. I began to wonder when environmentalists will finally add scarring of the earth along with their complaints about bird deaths to their objections to the technology. Every tower sat on a parcel of cleared land.

In any event, I was also reminded of something I encountered about a year ago concerning a scheme by T. Boone Pickens for the government to force the American economy to shift towards wind generation as a primary source of electricity. Back then, I wondered:

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

According to Wikipedia, the "Pickens Plan" -- of which the fleecing of his fellow Texans was just a part -- would cost $1 trillion. Not that this Congress has shown one jot of resistance to the temptation to spend huge amounts of money or micromanage our lives, but Pickens continues his full-court press for this scheme.

In fact, Pickens even seems to have borrowed a page from Barack Obama's playbook, busy as he is "organizing the New Energy Army in every Congressional District" in the name of "[telling] Congress to reduce our dependence on foreign oil." Too bad this approach -- which is just a type of central planning -- will only result in America needlessly restricting its access to cheap, reliable energy. Think "Terror-Free Oil" -- but without the oil.

Ever since I first moved to Texas when I was seventeen, the "big sky" of its flat landscape always made me think of America's vast potential. But now, thanks to T. Boone Pickens, whose government mooching is a betrayal of his American heritage, it is being transformed into a symbol of massive government waste and tyranny, one windmill at a time.

-- CAV

Photos from the Boston Tea Party

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here are a few photos from the July 4, 2009 Boston Tea Party, including the Ayn Rand Center booth as well as some of the OCON attendees carrying signs.

The weather was perfect -- sunny and clear, but not too hot. Attendance was probably 200-300, although it varied during the day. The crowd was philosophically mixed, and not obviously dominated by religionists or fringe ideological groups.

I didn't hear the talks by John Lewis or Yaron Brook because the schedule ran late and I had a conflicting engagement. I was told they were well received but I'll leave it to others to link to their speeches once they are available online.

Sarah Palin Resigns

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Sarah Palin's announcement of her resignation as Alaska's governor was a bit of a shocker. John Hawkins of Right Wing News proposed five possible reasons for the move:

1) She may intend to run for President in 2012 and feels like it's to her advantage to resign now. It will mean no more phony ethics complaints. She'll be able to raise money and campaign for Republican candidates without having it used against her as governor as well. On the downside, it would hurt her in her weakest area: experience. Some people may perceive it as being flaky and emotional as well, which is something a female politician needs to work especially hard to avoid.

2) There may be some big scandal that's about to come down the pike. That's a pretty standard reason for resignations of this sort. What it would be, I have no idea at this point.

3) She, or perhaps Todd, could have a big health issue.

4) Maybe the Left finally wore her down and she just decided politics wasn't worth it anymore. I've seen it happen to other conservative women who've endured far less abuse than Sarah Palin and her family have so far. Indeed, it's part of the Left's strategy with conservative women. They try to make politics so ugly, so nasty, so personal, and so vicious that conservative women just quit.
...

5) She could be pregnant again.

Option #1 is not credible: Sarah Palin has ended her political career with this resignation. (Thank goodness!) Option #4 isn't so likely either at this late date, not without some additional pressure. So I'm betting on Options #2, #3, or #5. My money is on #5. Or perhaps another of her children is in some kind of un-Christian trouble. If Palin herself is pregnant, my only comment is somewhat general: career women really ought to figure out how to use birth control.

Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul and I just finished four lovely days of hiking in Acadia, Maine. (I'll blog some about that later today, if I can.) We've had not-so-great internet access, however, so I'm a bit behind on some internet-dependent tasks, including blogging. However, tomorrow I'll start a daily (but short) blog post on OCON.

However, I want to mention that Dr. Tom Stevens -- of the so-called Objectivist Party has written the most absurdly offensive blog post possible: Farrah Fawcett's E-Mail Reveals Ayn Rand Thought Their Sharing The Same Birth Date Had Significance. I won't pain you by quoting the pompous blog post, but basically he accuses Ayn Rand of relying faith, superstition, and mysticism because she apparently made an offhand remark to Farrah Fawcett about them sharing a birthday.

Sheesh.

Parsing Obama

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

To grasp the scope of the national debt Obama (and his Republican predecessor) has been ringing up, a comparison should help illustrate the task. Bernard Madoff’s robbery and defrauding investors of some $50 billion can be represented by the diameter of the solar system. The federal government, using the same scamming tactics, is amassing a debt about the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy. Madoff’s scheme can be measured in millions of miles. The federal government's, in almost limitless parsecs. That measurement ought to suffice to dramatize the scale of the hole he is deliberately digging for the country in his role as Community-Organizer-in-Chief.

Since it is only productive work -- whether in a factory making widgets, or in a research lab creating new medicines or computer software -- that gives the dollar bill its value, Obama’s galactic debt will be expected to be funded from taxes paid from the productive, private sector. I make that distinction because the government is non-productive; it produces nothing, not even the paper its one hundred thousand commandments are printed on, not even the pens with which presidents sign legislation into law. That growing, astronomical debt, however, will serve to shrink the productive sector and make it less productive in exponential leaps and bounds -- off a cliff. It must inexorably reach a point that the productive sector can no longer sustain the debt it is expected to pay. Then we will have reached the economic status of, say, Zimbabwe.

The sentencing of Madoff to 150 years in prison for his crime elicited an outpouring of sanctimonious news coverage, complete with quotations from angry victims of his scheme and a sated passion for justice. Of course, Madoff deserved his sentence. Given his age, 71, perhaps he will serve just ten of it before dying in prison.

What clashes with the news media coverage of Madoff’s trial, conviction and sentencing for his crime is the studied obtuseness of the news media for the same crime being committed by the government. Madoff, you see, was “greedy” or “avaricious,” and that, according to the morality of altruism and selflessness, is immoral and antisocial. The government, however, is committing the same crime, but that is in order to “do good.” So its orgy of debt-creation, its extortionate policies of roping all Americans into a “dog-eat-dog” welfare state, and its targeting the most productive and the wealthiest in society for special punishment, are all acceptable and laudable.

Even though the news media has knowledge of this multi-trillion dollar scam, that knowledge elicits not an iota of outrage among the photogenic news anchors and highly paid print pundits. No respectable TV or print journalist even thinks of the scam in terms of a continuing and expanding bilking of Americans from their wealth, investments and taxes. (Except, perhaps, John Stossel of ABC, whose “20/20” report on the cost and dishonesty of the proposed socialist health care program was conveniently cancelled and replaced with a special on the life and death of Michael Jackson -- as though we weren‘t already gagging on the nonstop adulatory and scandal sheet coverage of this very disturbed person.)

“There is no plea agreement,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Marc Litt said at the hearing, meaning Madoff must plead guilty to 11 counts that he now faces in a criminal information filed today. Madoff is charged with securities fraud, investment advisor fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, false statements, perjury, false filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and theft from an employee benefit plan, Litt said.

No one is calling for the indictments of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Christopher Dodd, Henry Waxman, and all the usual suspects in Congress and the White House, even though they are all parties to the same crime. Examine the definitions of each of the counts with which Madoff was charged and convicted of, and ask how the actions of the co-conspirators differ any from what Madoff was found guilty of. One fundamental difference between Madoff’s crime and the federal government’s is that Madoff did not employ direct, legalized force to take his victims’ money. Another is that it was not in Madoff’s agenda to make his victims dependent on his benefice. In court, when he faced his victims, he (rather belatedly) apologized to them, and did not say, “But I did it for your sakes.”

“The U.S. government gets funds in three ways. It can look for increased revenues (through higher taxes). It can look to cut expenses (through lower spending). Or it can borrow by issuing new Treasury bonds. Replacing old bonds with new bonds is called “rolling over the debt,” and is done every day by households, businesses, and governments.”

Which of these ways will the Obama administration adopt to raise revenue? Count out number two. The productive sector of the economy will be expected to fund numbers one and three -- for as long as it survives.

On July 4th, President Barack Obama sent a holiday greeting to his supporters, via the Democratic National Committee. Obama’s presumptuousness, of course, knows no bounds or limits. His July 4th greeting was all about the importance of Independence Day. This commentary will examine the fallacies and fabrications contained in his greeting. At first glance, the message appears vacuous and commonplace. But beneath its blandness is poison.

This weekend, our family will join millions in celebrating America. We will enjoy the glow of fireworks, the taste of barbeque, and the company of good friends. As we all celebrate this weekend, let’s also remember the remarkable story that led to this day.

The story that led to the 4th of July is not merely “remarkable,” it is epochal. It is the story of men who decided that the idea that they owned their own lives, and not a tyrant, must be taken seriously enough to severe all political ties with that tyrant. What is Obama doing today? Taking actions to guarantee that our lives are tied to his whims and wishes, just as they were with Old World tyrants. If he had any valid recollection of that “remarkable story,” he would see that he is the villain.

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, our nation was born when a courageous group of patriots pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the proposition that all of us are created equal.

No. They pledged themselves to the proposition that men (not politically correct “all of us”) should exist in a state of freedom and not in one of subservience. Here is an instance of how disconnected Obama and his allies in Congress are from not only history, but from reality -- and how indifferent or hostile they are to that history and to reality. It is precisely the lives, fortunes and sacred honor of Americans that they are so busy expropriating, redistributing or destroying. The certain rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property are to them not unalienable, but disposable and eminently open to violation in the name of the “public good.” It is their operating premise that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends of government, that is, to securing individual rights and deriving its limited powers from the consent of the governed, the people have no right to alter or abolish that government, or even to criticize it.

Our country began as a unique experiment in liberty -- a bold, evolving quest to achieve a more perfect union. And in every generation, another courageous group of patriots has taken us one step closer to fully realizing the dream our founders enshrined on that great day.

No, the United States did not begin as a “unique experiment in liberty.” It began as an assertion of that liberty. No, a “more perfect union” was not the end of the Founders, but the establishment of a government that could best guarantee life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. A “more perfect union“ to Obama is all Americans marching in lockstep to an ideal collectivist state. “Quests” do not “evolve,” not unless one is not certain of one’s end. And ever since the Civil War, generations of politicians and political thinkers have been moving away from the end that our Founders sought to achieve. It takes no courage to advocate slavery and servitude to a confused and ignorant citizenry.

Today, all Americans have a hard-fought birthright to a freedom which enables each of us, no matter our views or background, to help set our nation’s course. America’s greatness has always depended on her citizens embracing that freedom -- and fulfilling the duty that comes with it.

It is that “hard-fought birthright” which Obama the constitutional “scholar” is busily cheating us out of with the skill of a shyster lawyer. Ideas set a nation’s course and determine its future or its fate. Freedom and duty are literal antipodes. No one has a duty to sanction his own servitude or slavery, which is what Obama is advocating as the “price” of the freedom he is hurriedly destroying and which he hopes we do not embrace so selfishly that we will not relinquish it to satisfy the democratic mob and to perpetuate the comfort and peace of mind of a corrupt, prostituted Congress.

As a free people, we must each take the challenges and opportunities that face this nation as our own. As long as some Americans still must struggle, none of us can be fully content. And as America comes ever closer to achieving the perfect union our founders dreamed, that triumph -- that pride -- belongs to all of us.

Obama’s challenges and opportunities to expand federal power are not those of Americans who value their freedom. Americans must always “struggle” to achieve their personal happiness, and can be content with having achieved it without being asked to live for the sake of others. That happiness cannot be achieved if men are chained to each other’s needs.

So today is a day to reflect on our independence, and the sacrifice of our troops standing in harm’s way to preserve and protect it. It is a day to celebrate all that America is. And today is a time to aspire to all we can still become.

With very best wishes, President Barack Obama July 4th, 2009

Yes, many Americans are reflecting upon their independence, not only on that of this country, but on their independence from each other as individuals who own their own lives and pursue their own happiness -- which is not what Obama is asking of either our troops or any Americans. Sacrifice for unselfish, altruist ends is what he promotes -- not the defense of this country, not its prosperity, not its freedom. That reflection by many thoughtful, concerned Americans has been deemed “right wing extremism” by the Department of Homeland Security deserving of surveillance, scrutiny, and police action.

In summary, one must agree in spirit with conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer that is not Obama’s words that one must pay attention to, but what he does. But one must disagree with Krauthammer because collectivism is what he and the Democrats have been quite obviously preaching for the last two years. One merely needs to read between the lines and the lies.

On the Sly, if at All

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

Via HBL, I learned of an outstanding piece (registration required) in the New York Times that illustrates in lurid detail how the federal grant system systematically prevents and impedes groundbreaking scientific research.

For 25 years, Eileen K. Jaffe received federal grants to run her lab. As a senior scientist at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, with a long list of published papers in prestigious journals, she is a respected, established researcher.

Then Dr. Jaffe stumbled upon results that went against textbook explanations, suggesting that it might be possible to find an entirely new class of drugs that could disable proteins that fuel cancer cells. Now she wants to find chemicals that might be developed into such drugs.

But her grant proposal was rejected out of hand by the institutes of health, not even discussed by a review panel. She had no preliminary data showing that the idea was likely to work, something reviewers always want to see, and the idea was just too unprecedented. [bold added]

But even this system doesn't have a 100% kill rate. Some scientists do know how to game it, although I wonder how long such an option will last.

Some experienced scientists have found a way to offset the problem somewhat. They do chancy experiments by siphoning money from their grants.

"In a way, the system is encrypted," [molecular biologist Keith] Yamamoto said, allowing those in the know to wink and do their own thing on the side.

Great discoveries have been made with N.I.H. financing without manipulating the system, [Richard] Klausner [a former Director of the National Cancer Institute] said.

"But," he added, "I actually believe that by and large it is despite, rather than because of, the review system." [bold added]

Read the whole thing. Amusingly (in a sick way), the NIH is "experimenting" with ways to improve this inherently broken system by encouraging innovation with "challenge grants," even as the best way to encourage truly cutting-edge research lies hidden in plain sight.

Now women with excess HER-2 proteins, who once had the worst breast cancer prognoses, have prognoses that are among the best. But when Dr. [Dennis] Slamon wanted to start this research, his grant was turned down. He succeeded only after the grateful wife of a patient helped him get money from Revlon, the cosmetics company.

Too bad so many scientists think that, without government loot, scientific progress would be retarded because those big, evil corporations "have no interest" in scientific research. That misconception will unfortunately cause companies like Revlon to have to continue to pay the highest corporate taxes in the world to finance mere tinkering, rather than have more of their own money at their own disposal to use for real innovation. (And no, government research prizes are not an "answer," either.)

Read the whole thing.

-- CAV

Ayn Rand Scholars and Fans Gather in Boston

By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

 
Ayn Rand Scholars and Fans Gather in Boston

July 1, 2009

Irvine, CA On July 3rd the Ayn Rand Institute will hold its annual Objectivist Summer Conference (OCON) at the Seaport Hotel in Boston.  From all over the world admirers of the late novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand will gather for nine days of intellectual stimulation and fellowship.
 
OCON will feature classes by the world’s leading Objectivist scholars and businessmen, such as BB&T Corporation Chairman John Allison, and the President and CEO of Hutchinson Technology, Wayne Fortun.  Ayn Rand Institute president and executive director Yaron Brook will also be giving a course on the causes of the financial crisis. 

“OCON is a very unique opportunity for enthusiasts of Ayn Rand to associate and discuss Objectivist ideas”, Dr. Brook said. “For many of our conferees this is their only, and most cherished, vacation of the year.”

### ### ###

 

What Obama Should Say To Iran

By Debi Ghate from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Protests in Iran continue despite the theocracy’s attempt to crush them. As Tehran launches its usual accusations of “American interference,” could it be that America hasn’t “interfered” enough?

Imagine what might happen—what potential benefit there could be to us and to Iran—if this speech were made by an American President.

“Good evening. I am here to address events of great significance to the American people. Over the past weeks, we have witnessed the murdering, beating and intimidation of Iranian protestors by a theocratic regime clenching its iron fist to retain power. I strongly condemn these unjust actions of the Iranian regime.

It is time for America to be unequivocal and to recognize its past errors. It is time for the United States to make it clear that it does not recognize the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has not had a legitimate government worthy of our recognition for decades. The country has been ruled by a series of murdering clerics who seized power outside of any legitimate political means. They were not chosen through any representative process. They are dictators of the worst kind.

For decades, the Iranian regime has repeatedly declared itself an enemy of America, openly acting in violence against our citizens. We’ve known it since the clerics and their supporters took our embassy staff hostage in 1979. We’ve known it in the form of multiple Tehran-backed attacks on Americans since: 1983 in Beirut where we lost 241 people in a bombing; 1985 when TWA 847 was hijacked by Iranian-trained Hezbollah fighters and we lost a Navy diver; 1996 at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia where we lost 19; the list goes on. We’ve heard their message: “Death to America.”

This is a regime that loudly calls for jihad on the West—for the violent imposition of sharia law—it calls for Islamic totalitarianism. It provides the intellectual leadership for the Islamist movement: training, financing, and otherwise encouraging a multitude of terrorist organizations—including those responsible for the September 11th attacks on our soil.  America has not forgotten that this regime orchestrated and participated in three decades of deadly assaults upon its people and is ultimately responsible for them. We have nothing to say to the Iranian regime—except that we will no longer repeat our grave errors of the past. We know what you stand for, and what threat you pose.

But we do have much to say to the brave Iranians voicing their opposition to the Supreme leader, making it clear his regime does not represent them.

To those among you standing up in the face of threats; to those among you saying “We will continue to speak even if you, Supreme leader, claim that Allah forbids it”; to those among you deciding that it is time for freedom in Iran—we say: you have our encouragement, and our sanction.

To those among you protesting against more than the electoral results, who are wholesale rejecting the oppressive nature of theocratic rule—we offer you our moral and financial support. And if necessary, we will offer you military support to the best of our ability. You see, we share your goal of ending the Iranian theocracy and of eliminating the threat it poses to our own nation. We have had the moral right to end it for decades; you not only have that right, you have the moral fortitude.

To those few in Iran desperately seeking liberty: rejecting theocratic rule is critical, but what are you fighting for? Seize this opportunity to fight for a nation founded on principles that protect individual rights. As America once fought for its independence, so can you. Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness: these are your inalienable rights. The time is now to fight to create a free nation upholding these principles.

It will not be easy. Our thoughts are with you as you face imminent danger and uncertainty. It will take courage and conviction. But to you, the true friend of freedom, we say: we are with you as you take your first important step towards real revolution. You have rejected the iron fist that smashes you down through religious rule. You have spoken. Stand firm, and we will stand with you.”

Unfortunately we will not hear this speech. Only a President acting on a foreign policy that properly defends the rights of its own citizens—a foreign policy of principled self-interest—would take this bold stand.