Smash the Labor Monopolies!

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

Smash the Labor Monopolies!

by Thomas Bowden

When President Obama addresses the AFL-CIO on Sept. 15, he is expected to reiterate his support for the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. Congress is sharply divided over the proposed law, which would change the voting and arbitration procedures by which federal law forces companies to deal with labor unions.

Because the changes favor Big Labor, pro-union Democrats have been locked in a prolonged partisan squabble with their Republican opponents, and legislative compromise seems likely. But that’s really beside the point. Instead of quibbling over the methods by which unions can be forced upon unwilling employers and employees, Congress should be debating how to make the labor market truly free--free from government coercion.

For more than 70 years, Congress has maintained a statutory scheme that fastens coercive labor monopolies on individual companies. Starting with the Wagner Act in 1935, any union that wins a simple majority of employee votes becomes, by force of law, the exclusive bargaining agent for every single employee in that workplace. Such a victory slams the door shut on individuals who want to deal directly with the company, and leaves the union with a government-protected stranglehold on that firm’s labor supply. Predictably, these company-by-company labor monopolies have had the kind of deadening effects that come with all coercive monopolies.

Here’s how it works in practice: Each company is required by law to “bargain in good faith” with the union before making any important decision affecting jobs, wages, or working conditions. The union, in its legally privileged position, can just say no. When pressed, it can mobilize a crippling strike even if thousands of employees would rather keep working--because here, too, the outcome of an employee majority vote binds everyone. Usually, however, the mere threat of such a strike is enough to keep employers in line.

Now suppose a unionized firm wants to sell or close an unprofitable plant, or revamp a workflow to save expenses. At the “bargaining” table, the union’s predictable resistance is typically followed by one of two results. Either the union stands firm, in which case the unprofitable practices continue--or the union acquiesces, in exchange for higher wages and benefits, or a job for the shop steward’s son, or some other favor. This is not genuine bargaining but organized extortion, made possible by federal labor law.

So, while non-unionized competitors charge ahead with nimble, inventive, rapid responses to market challenges, unionized companies learn to slow down, “negotiate,” compromise, draw up rules--in other words, kowtow to the union. The inevitable results are bloated prices and declining product quality, as witness the domestic auto industry.

Detroit’s automakers, having suffered through painful work stoppages in the decades following World War II, discovered they could avoid labor unrest by caving in to the United Auto Workers’ demands. Over the years, meeting those demands gave rise to labor agreements as thick as telephone books, testaments to the stultifying regimentation that sapped Detroit’s competitive juices.

Because car manufacturing is complex and capital intensive, many years passed before competitors from Japan, Korea, and Germany could establish non-unionized plants in America’s southland. Now, however, the sun is setting on Detroit. GM and Chrysler are writhing in red ink, drained to the point of bankruptcy by costly union concessions, and Ford struggles to survive.

Not all labor unions wield UAW-level power, but most would like to. That’s why the Employee Free Choice Act would eliminate secret ballots in union elections and replace them with individually signed cards, open to union inspection. This would allow union organizers to more easily target, and intimidate, anti-union employees--and therefore win more often. The Act would also allow government arbitrators to impose initial “contract” terms if the union and employer disagree. That’s contrary to existing law, which allows for a no-contract impasse in that situation.

Congress should not only reject the transparent power grab known as the Employee Free Choice Act, it should start hacking at the root of the complex federal regime that denies free choice in bargaining. That means repealing the Wagner Act, so that labor law can recognize and protect the absolute right of companies and employees to deal with each other on an entirely voluntary basis.

#   #   #

 

The U.N. is Fundamentally Flawed

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

The U.N. is Fundamentally Flawed

WASHINGTON, September 24, 2009--Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s recent 90-minute tirade, and the anti-semitic ranting of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both at the United Nations general assembly, are yet two more reminders of what’s fundamentally wrong with the United Nations.

“The fundamental feature of the U.N. is its policy of opening membership non-judgmentally to all nations--whether free or oppressive, peaceful or belligerent,” says Elan Journo, a fellow with the Ayn Rand Center.

“The U.N.'s policy of neutrality accomplishes precisely the opposite of its putative effect; it actually protects and bolsters vicious regimes.

“That the U.N. benefits evil regimes is a necessary consequence of its avowed ideal of neutrality. The willful refusal to discriminate between good and evil, between freedom and slavery, can benefit only the vicious. It is only an evil regime that fears moral scrutiny, that needs to conceal its crimes, and that struggles for a veneer of moral legitimacy. The U.N.'s policy of moral neutrality is precisely what evil desperately craves: a license to commit any depravity and escape with a reputation for being decent.

“No organization can resolve conflicts if it evades the objective difference between right and wrong, and perversely treats an aggressor as the moral equal of his innocent victim. The U.N. is far from a means to achieving peace. Because it arms and bestows a moral sanction on vicious regimes, it is an accessory to their incalculable atrocities and murders.”

# # #

 

Fighting for the People. . .of Afghanistan?

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

Fighting for the People . . . of Afghanistan?

WASHINGTON, September 23, 2009--In a recent statement by top U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal, he criticized the U.S. military for being “preoccupied with protection of our own forces” in Afghanistan. He wrote that American forces should “share risk, at least equally, with the people” of Afghanistan. What makes our leaders think that they can ever win a war with this sort of philosophy? 

“If Afghanistan now seems unwinnable, blame Bush and Obama,” writes Elan Journo, a fellow with the Ayn Rand Center. “Bush crusaded not to destroy the Taliban but to bring Afghans elections and reconstruction. Obama’s ‘new’ tack is to insist we spend billions more on nation-building and bend over backwards to safeguard the local population. Both take for granted the allegedly moral imperative of putting the lives and welfare of Afghans first--ahead of defeating the enemy to protect Americans.

“This imperative lies behind Washington’s self-crippled war--a war which could have worked to deter other jihadists and their state-sponsors, but instead encourages them to attempt further attacks.

“How many more Americans must die before we challenge this conception of a proper war?”

# # #

 

Is Opposing Health Care Reform a Crime?

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

Is Opposing Health Care Reform a Crime?

WASHINGTON, September 22, 2009--The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently launched an investigation into an attempt by the health insurance company Humana to enlist its customers to fight proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage. The investigation was initiated at the urging of Senator Max Baucus, who said, “It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject--particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health care reform. . . . I’m not going to let insurance company profits stand in the way of improving Medicare for seniors.”

According to Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Center, “It is painfully obvious--and alarming--that Humana is not being investigated for its ‘marketing’ practices. It is being investigated because it had the gall to challenge the assertions of a member of Congress.

“The implication of Baucus’s statement is that Humana must be investigated for in effect defrauding its customers by misleading them about the nature of Baucus’s proposal. But what did Humana’s ‘fraudulent’ claim consist of? No one disputes the fact that the budget for Medicare Advantage could be slashed under the health care bills now in Congress. The dispute is over the effects this will have. Humana claimed it could potentially lead to some of its customers losing benefits--not an unreasonable view--but Baucus insists ‘The health care reform bill we released . . . strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits.’

“Think of what it would mean for politicians--hardly notorious for their scrupulous honesty--to be able to punish Americans because our claims about the effects of a proposed law conflict with their assertions.

“In a free country, it is not a crime to question the claims of one’s political leaders. If Baucus’s action is allowed to go unchallenged, however, free speech is gravely threatened.”

 

# # #

 

 

The Ayn Rand Center Offers Blueprint for Freedom

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

The Ayn Rand Center Offers Blueprint for Freedom

WASHINGTON, September 25, 2009--Critics and the media have sometimes criticized the tea party movement for lack of a positive, cohesive message beyond the anger and outrage at current government policies. The Ayn Rand Center launches a new website offering the American people intellectual ammunition they need to fight the wave of big government that we are now witnessing:

http://www.principlesofafreesociety.com/

What makes a society free? What does it mean for an individual to be free—free to pursue his rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness? What must we now do to achieve the type of free society that our Founding Fathers envisioned?

Principles of a Free Society is a new Web site that explores Ayn Rand's answers to these and many other questions. It presents and defines the principles that are necessary for a truly free society.

# # #

 

 

 

 

MY Blue Sky

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

Last year, I was unable to pay my respects to those who were murdered today in 2001 in the way that I had wanted because I was fleeing from a storm that eventually hit where I was living at the time.

This year, I find that my country faces a different storm no less threatening and from which physical avoidance will not deliver us. Fortunately, it is humanly possible to blunt the effects of this man-made storm in other ways. The Enemy-in-Chief may, for example, be doubling down on his attempts to impose servitude on our physicians and their patients en route to "taking care" of the rest of us, but America has successfully resisted tyranny before, and we can do it again.

The issue over which these battles are being fought -- the individual's inalienable moral and political right to lead his own life free from threats and coercion from others -- is the same. Only the methods of fighting differ. But as we fight to survive, we stop for a moment to mourn those who were murdered that day, and take a moment to consider how precious being alive and free really is.

It is from that perspective that I write today. After a living thing is injured, it begins to heal. I am no less angry about what the Islamic savages did then on the way to squandering their own lives, and no less resolved that we must eventually wage a merciless war against the countries that made what they did possible.

However, time has made me better able to enjoy again the simple pleasure of a blue sky like the one I saw that morning just before I heard the news. I have noticed that I no longer am immediately reminded of those attacks whenever I see one.

Those obscene events, still celebrated by Moslems the world over as "holy," violated all of us, and it is from that violation I think I noticed myself recovering this morning. I realized on a deeper level that while it may be necessary to fight back to continue living, that my cause is holy and untouched. It is my life, it is my spirit, and it is my blue sky.

The last three sentences are almost word for word what I thought upon waking today. Knowing what anniversary loomed, I'd spent some time yesterday evening reading about the events and their perpetrators, but that is what I woke up thinking about instead.

The feeling was all mine, but something about the formulation seemed eerily familiar. As it turns out, some digging shows that the words echo the following passage near the end of Ayn Rand's novella, Anthem, after its protagonist rediscovers the word that America's enemies would like to abolish forever.

I AM. I THINK. I WILL.

My hands... My spirit... My sky... My forest... This earth of mine ....

What must I say besides? These are the words. This is the answer.

I stand here on the summit of the mountain. I lift my head and I spread my arms. This, my body and spirit, this is the end of the quest. I wished to know the meaning of things. I am the meaning. I wished to find a warrant for being. I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.

It is my eyes which see, and the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear, and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth. It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the only edict I must respect.

Many words have been granted me, and some are wise, and some are false, but only three are holy: "I will it!"

Whatever road I take, the guiding star is within me; the guiding star and the load-stone which point the way. They point in but one direction. They point to me.

I know not if this earth on which I stand is the core of the universe or if it is but a speck of dust lost in eternity. I know not and I care not. For I know what happiness is possible to me on earth. And my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.

Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars.

I am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before! (111)

And that is the answer.

I will never forget that day or forgive anyone who lent those atrocities aid or comfort in any way, but they have not vanquished my soul. And yes, we Americans are in great danger from many fronts. We must fight the scourge of tyranny, whatever its source, vigilantly and without compromise. That is vitally important, but on one level, doing so is as significant as swatting flies: You just do it and you get on with your life, because life is precious.

I can enjoy my blue sky again. Thank you once again, Ayn Rand!

-- CAV

Obama vs the GOP on Health Care

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Last night, Obama called for massive government controls on medicine and health insurance -- just stopping short of single payer. Yet single payer -- meaning total government control over health care -- would be the inevitable result of his plan. He would drive up the cost of insurance by preventing insurance companies from limiting their coverage in any way. He would destroy the insurance industry by creating a "public exchange." And he would demand that everyone buy insurance, whether they can afford it or not. If Obama's plan is passed, Americans will be forced into the government's health plans over the next decade -- and we'll pay dearly for that with our time, our money, and our health.

Paul is already busy writing on that, but since Obama's proposals so closely mirror the three-year-old Massachusetts plan, I'd recommend that you read (or re-read) his article Mandatory Insurance: Wrong For Massachusetts, Wrong For America and the relevant FIRM blog posts.

Now, in face of this dangerous socialist onslaught, we can expect the Republicans to take a clear and principled stance for free markets, right? Uh, no.

Ari Armstrong alerted me to this telling portion of the oh-so-predictable GOP response to Obama's speech, given by Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisana, a physician. He said:

Here are four important areas where we can agree, right now:

One, all individuals should have access to coverage, regardless of preexisting conditions.

Two, individuals, small businesses and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way large businesses and labor unions do.

Three, we can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor.

And, four, insurers should be able to offer incentives for wellness care and prevention — something particularly important to me. I operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they'd simply made healthier choices earlier in life.

As Ari said, "Obama teed up the ball, and the Republicans smacked themselves in the face with the club."

If the Republicans are such enthusiastic socialists as the opposition -- where they usually do much better -- just imagine how awful they'd be if they were in power! As frightening as he is, I don't regret the election of Obama. The Republicans have yet to show themselves fit to govern America.

The Cause of Nazism

By Greg Perkins from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Objectivism Seminar just started going through Dr. Leonard Peikoff's all-too-topical book, The Ominous Parallels. In it, he explores what gave rise to to the fascist, totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany -- and analyzes whether and how a fascist, totalitarian regime could emerge here in America.

Order Your Undercurrents!

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Yesterday, I got this helpful reminder from the good folks at The Undercurrent about ordering their fall edition.

Hi Diana,

I hope you had a great Labor Day weekend! ...

I just wanted to make sure you don't forget that the newest issue of The Undercurrent (TU) is available for order only until September 20, 2009! That is correct: you only have twelve days left to order the Fall Edition of TU, which will feature articles on a wide range of fascinating topics, like Obama's health care policy, ethical training in today's MBA programs, downloading music illegally, and the historic expansion of government in America. Following the success of our special Summer Edition, we have high expectations of this, the first issue of the school year - but those expectations can only be realized with your help!

To order, visit the-undercurrent.com/order, or e-mail your name, address, and the number of copies you wish to purchase to contact@the-undercurrent.com.

We also ask that you let us know if you cannot afford to distribute. In all likelihood, we will be able to match you with a donor who would be more than happy to sponsor your distribution efforts. Please do not hesitate to contact us at contact@the-undercurrent.com.

Another crucial way you can help promote and spread interest in The Undercurrent and Objectivism as a whole is handing out and posting our flyers. Several designs are available and free for distribution at the-undercurrent.com/participate.

Or, if you are of means but not of time, please consider making a donation to The Undercurrent, so that we can continue providing papers to students free of charge. For more information about donating, visit the-undercurrent.com/donate or email us at contact@the-undercurrent.com.

In closing, I wish you another fruitful year of intellectual activism. With your help, The Undercurrent can continue our efforts to bring about another renaissance.

Sincerely,

Victoria Genther

Notice the ticking clock! Orders must be in by September 20th. So if you want to order copies, you'd better do so sooner rather than later! I've only just gotten my own rear in gear: I'm now working on raising funds from Front Range Objectivism to order some copies for our Denver Objectivist campus club.

Visit to the ARC

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

While attending a medical conference last week in Washington DC, Diana and I also spent some time with our friend Lin Zinser, Vice President of Public Outreach at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC).

The ARC office is located in the heart of Washington DC, just a few blocks away from other think tanks, the National Press Club, the White House, etc:


View Larger Map

Besides the usual office stuff (computers, phones, conference room), they had a few historical artifacts from the Ayn Rand Archives in California, such as these original pages from Rand's hand-written draft of The Fountainhead:





Given the current political climate, I'm glad that they've been working hard to get Ayn Rand's ideas circulated amongst the opinion-makers in DC. It's hard to believe that they've only been in operation for only a year, and I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the second year of operation.

If you do wish to visit, call ahead first, as the staff there are busy!

Their address/phone number is:

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
555 12th Street NW, Suite 620 N
Washington, DC 20004
202-454-1997

Our Self-Crippled War

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

Our Self-Crippled War

by Elan Journo

Watching video of the Twin Towers imploding, we all felt horror and outrage. We expected our government to fight back--to protect us from the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. We knew it must, and could, be done. Fighting all-out after Pearl Harbor, we had defeated the colossal naval and air forces of Japan. But eight years later--twice as long as it took to smash Japanese imperialism--what has Washington’s military response to 9/11 achieved?

The enemy that struck us--properly identified not as “terrorism” but rather the jihadist movement seeking to impose Islamic law worldwide--is not merely undefeated, but resurgent.

Islamist factions in Pakistan fight to conquer that country and seize its nuclear weapons. The movement’s inspiration and standard-bearer, the Islamic Republic of Iran, remains the leading sponsor of terrorism, and may soon acquire its own nuclear weapons.

Then there’s the Afghanistan debacle. Eight years ago, practically everyone agreed we must (and could) eliminate the Taliban and its jihadist allies--a primitively equipped force thousands of times less powerful than Imperial Japan. Now that goal seems unreachable.

Today swaggering holy warriors control large areas of the country. They summarily execute anyone deemed un-Islamic, and operate a shadow government with its own religious law courts and “virtue” enforcers. Last year the CIA warned that virtually every major terrorist threat the agency was aware of threaded back to the tribal areas near the Taliban-infested Afghan-Pakistan border.

Why have we been so unsuccessful?

No, the problem is not a shortage of troops, nor is the remedy another Iraq-like “surge.” That sham, appeasing solution entails not quelling the insurgency, but paying tens of thousands of dollars to insurgents not to fight us, for as long as the money flows. And it means leaving Iraq in the hands of leaders far more committed to jihadists than Hussein. No, the crucial problem is the inverted war policy governing U.S. forces on the battlefield.

Defeating the Islamist threat demanded that we fight to crush the jihadists. Victory demanded we recognize the unwelcome necessity of civilian casualties and place blame for them at the hands of the aggressor (as we were more willing to do in World War II). Victory demanded allowing our unmatched military to do its job--without qualification. Instead, our leaders waged a “compassionate” war.

Before the Afghan war began, Washington defined lengthy “no-strike” lists including cultural sites, electrical plants--a host of legitimate strategic targets ruled untouchable--for fear of affronting or harming civilians. Meanwhile, we sent C-17 cargo planes to drop 500,000-odd Islam-compliant food packets to feed starving Afghans and, inevitably, jihadists.

Many Islamists survived, regrouped and staged a fierce comeback.

The no-strike lists lengthened. So, necessary bombing raids are now often canceled, sacrificing the opportunity to kill Islamist fighters. Jihadists exploit this to their advantage. Lt. Gen. Gary L. North tried to justify the policy to a reporter: “Eventually, we will get to the point where we can achieve--within the constraints of which we operate, which by the way the enemy does not operate under--and we will get them.”

“Eventually”--for another eight years?

In Washington’s “compassionate” war, we give the enemy every advantage--and then compel our soldiers to fight with their hands tied . . . ever tighter.

Naturally, U.S. deaths have soared. More Americans died in the first eight months of this year (182) than in all of last year--the bloodiest year of the war, up till now.

If Afghanistan now seems unwinnable, blame Bush and Obama. Bush crusaded not to destroy the Taliban but to bring Afghans elections and reconstruction. Obama’s “new” tack is to insist we spend billions more on nation-building and bend over backwards to safeguard the local population. Both take for granted the allegedly moral imperative of putting the lives and welfare of Afghans first--ahead of defeating the enemy to protect Americans.

This imperative lies behind Washington’s self-crippled war--a war which could have worked to deter other jihadists and their state-sponsors, but instead encourages them to attempt further attacks.

How many more Americans must die before we challenge this conception of a proper war?

 

###

 

Reason is Forever

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

Liberals are now awakening to the evidence that President Barack Obama and his web of cronies, pull-peddlers, appointees and assorted parasites -- that alliance of the Chicago and Beltway Gangs -- are planning to move in on freedom of speech with every intention of “modifying” it so that it means only what the government wants it to mean. And some are worried that current restrictions on the First Amendment might be “modified” or even reversed and declared unconstitutional, specifically McCain-Feingold, which governs corporate spending on election campaign ads, and other anti-freedom of speech rulings such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which a movie, “Hillary: The Movie,” made by an anti-Clinton group, fell under the strictures of McCain-Feingold. A three-judge FEC “court” ruled against an appeal by the group to challenge the Court’s decision.

McCain-Feingold is “a federal enactment designed to prevent ‘big money’ from unfairly influencing federal elections-which, among other things, prohibits corporate financing of ‘electioneering communications’ and imposes mandatory disclosure and disclaimer requirements on such communications.”

Robert Barnes, in a Washington Post article of September 8, “Reversal of Precedents at Issue,” complains that the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, may well “defy the decisions of Congress and to set aside its own precedents.”

This raises ageless questions about the role of stare decisis -- the court’s custom of standing by its previous decisions. But it also raises new ones about the boldness of a court that has moved to the right with the addition of Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

It seems that while liberals are all for trashing customs and traditions in the march to an egalitarian, collectivist society -- not to mention reason and justice -- some traditions become sacred to them if the trashing or violation jeopardizes the advances of the collectivists. Thus, Barnes’s worry that the precedent of the Supreme Court upholding McCain-Feingold in December 2003 may in turn be subjected to an unprecedented volte-face. Justices Roberts, Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas could well be the majority that reverses the Citizens United v. FEC and McConnell v. FEC rulings.

[For details concerning these and other McCain-Feingold and FEC-related cases, see The Campaign Finance Institute here.]

“Overruling Austin or McConnell in this case would be unwarranted and unseemly,” former solicitor general Seth P. Waxman told the court on behalf of McCain and other congressional sponsors. “Stare decisis requires respect for precedents absent a special justification for overruling tem. No such justification exists.”

Unwarranted? Unseemly? What old-fashioned terms! They sound almost “Republican.“

Yes, such a justification exists -- the First Amendment -- but no Supreme Court justice will cite it without paragraphs of rationalistic legal babble, or at least understand, adhere to, and expound its absoluteness: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The language is clear; that is justification enough.

The Court was wrong to uphold McCain-Feingold. It ought to have declared it unconstitutional at the first opportunity and in the strongest terms in December 2003. That was a precedent that should never have been made, and which should be corrected now-- in the strongest terms. But, we should not count on Chief Justice Roberts et al. to rule absolutely in upholding the First Amendment. Rationalizations and procedural niceties, going by their past decisions, will likely befog or obstruct their thinking.

On the other side of the freedom of speech coin is the issue of an attempt by the administration to co-opt the National Endowment for the Arts as a branch of the White House and convert it into a Joseph Goebbels-style Ministry of Propaganda (or as an American style, Orwellian Ministry of Truth). This development has given liberals painful stomach flutters, especially in those who campaigned for Obama.

It is a little too late for them to worry about the encroachment now. If they believed in and endorsed Obama’s campaign promises to undertake a radical “change” of the country to unadulterated socialism, they should have realized that it meant the “socialization” of everything, including art, which is protected by the First Amendment. One wonders why artists and writers believe themselves exempt from the slavery and servitude they advocate should be imposed on everyone else.

On August 25, Patrick C. Courrielche, columnist for Big Hollywood, reported on an unusual but unreported teleconference that occurred on August 5.

On Thursday August 6th, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to attend a conference call scheduled for Monday August 10th hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include “a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!”

Courrielche goes on to reveal:

The people running the conference call and rallying the group to get active on these issues were Yosi Sergant, the Director of Communications for the National Endowment for the Arts; Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for United We Serve; Thomas Bates, Vice President of Civic Engagement for Rock the Vote; and Michael Skolnik, Political Director for Russell Simmons.

We were encouraged to bring the same sense of enthusiasm to these “focus areas” as we had brought to Obama’s presidential campaign, and we were encouraged to create art and art initiatives that brought awareness to these issues. Throughout the conversation, we were reminded of our ability as artists and art professionals to “shape the lives” of those around us. The now famous Obama “Hope” poster, created by artist Shepard Fairey and promoted by many of those on the phone call, and will.i.am’s “Yes We Can” song and music video were presented as shining examples of our group’s clear role in the election.

Courrielche expresses his qualms and reservations about this event, which went mostly unreported by the MSM. In a follow-up to his column, he writes that it is doubtful that the NEA’s action has any legal basis for such recruitment, and reports further that when its role in the White House teleconference was revealed, the NEA denied any responsibility, and fobbed off that responsibility on a “third party.”

Courrielche believes in the existence of the NEA. He will not question the rightness of its existence. Government, he believes, has a responsibility to support and encourage the arts. So, he wonders:

The NEA is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts. That is right, the largest funder of the arts in the nation – a fact that I’m sure was not lost on those that were on the call, including myself. One of the NEA’s major functions is providing grants to artists and arts organizations. The NEA has also historically shown the ability to attract “matching funds” for the art projects and foundations that they select. So we have the nation’s largest arts funder, which is a federal agency staffed by the administration, with those that they potentially fund together on a conference call discussing taking action on issues under vigorous national debate. Does there appear to be any potential for conflict here?

Yes, there is a major conflict of interest here: taxpayers coerced into paying for the “free expression” of dependent writers and artists. They must be satisfied with being involuntary donors to sustain the country’s “culture.“ But, this is the government calling in its loans and markers. He and his subsidized colleagues in the arts benefited from the looting of other taxpayers. He protests too much:

I’m not a “right-wing nut job.” It just goes against my core beliefs to sit quietly while the art community is used by the NEA and the administration to push an agenda other than the one for which it was created. It is not within the National Endowment for the Arts’ original charter to initiate, organize, and tap into the art community to help bring awareness to health care, or energy & environmental issues for that matter; and especially not at a time when it is being vehemently debated. Artists shouldn’t be used as tools of the state to help create a climate amenable to their positions, which is what appears to be happening in this instance. If the art community wants to tackle those issues on its own then fine. But tackling them shouldn’t come as an encouragement from the NEA to those they potentially fund at this coincidental time.

It is hardly “coincidental” that the NEA would become a party to the current White House plan to bombard Americans with leftist propaganda. It was in the cards. It does not occur to Courrielche that taxpayers should not be used as tools of the state to promote the careers of writers and artists, whatever the degree of their competence or lack of it.

And if you think that my fear regarding the arts becoming a tool of the state is still unfounded, I leave you with a few statements made by the NEA to the art community participants on the conference call. “This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?…bare [sic] with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely… “

Safely? Isn’t that the first concern of a thief contemplating a crime? Of a bureaucrat “overreaching” his mandate, as Courrielche puts it? Isn’t usage of that term indicative of a mind habituated to felony? He ought to have known better. He was a former employee of the NEA and learned first-hand that since political pull governs who gets how much in taxpayer money to “support the arts,” it cannot be limited to that species of theft. When all the stops have been removed, as they have been throughout Obama’s administration, the practice will necessarily expand into other realms of political action.

Including drafting writers and artists into a White House-directed propaganda blitz to persuade Americans that the administration means no harm and that its goals are benign and glorious. The White House and the NEA do not give a fig about Courrielche’s “core beliefs.” They are irrelevant to power-lusters. You ate my bread. Now, sing my song. Or you get no more donuts. That is the message of the benefactors to the beneficiaries.

The Supreme Court should never have upheld McCain-Feingold. And Patrick Courrielche and his colleagues should never have taken government money to subsidize their careers, nor endorsed any government program that did. Robert Barnes is fearful that a modicum of reason might move the Court to reverse its stand on the selective censorship of McCain-Feingold. Courrielche, also allowing a quantum of reason to stir his own fears, is concerned that Obama, together with the NEA, is out to corrupt the integrity of tax-supported artists in whom integrity never existed.

Neither Barnes, nor the Supreme Court, nor Courrielche has ever grasped that reason is forever -- it is the indispensable means of man for his survival and happiness -- and that it cannot be discarded or evaded, in the short term or the long term. It will ultimately overtake and dispel the illusion that it can be dispensed with.

Speaking of freedom of speech, something moved Joe Wilson, Republican representative from South Carolina who has opposed the health care bill, to shout “You lie!” to Obama on September 9th as he addressed a joint session of Congress to plead for passage of the health care bill. Obama had just claimed that illegal immigrants would not be eligible for government-run health care insurance. He replied, “That’s not true.“ Well, why should anyone believe what Obama says is true or untrue? Wilson was immediately condemned by Democrats and Republicans for the “outburst.” Wilson should not be condemned, nor should he have apologized.

One newspaper reported that “Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi directed a fierce frown at him…Vice President Joe Biden looked down and shook his head….” But, in the CNN video, which can be seen here, Vice President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi glance sharply in the direction of Wilson -- like a pair of liars surprised in the act and their expressions full of malice for the person who surprised them.

One may ask: Wasn’t Wilson’s outburst disrespectful, unwarranted and unseemly? Hardly. How else was he to call to the country’s attention with any drama that the whole health care bill is a lie, and that Obama and Congressional supporters of it have lied about it from the very beginning? Wilson chose to not sit quietly while the President of the United States lied, and while his fellow Congressmen sanctioned what they knew was a lie with their silence.

In the face of falsehood, and in the presence of a falsifier, decorum and respect should be one's last concern.

Perhaps Wilson, too, grasped for a moment that reason is forever.

Do fat people deserve medical treatment?

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

Faced with an “obesity epidemic“, that has dramatic consequences for medical costs, pundits have proposed different solutions, ranging from excluding obesity from health insurance, government-run prevention campaigns, higher taxes on junk food, or higher premiums for fat people.

The possibility of greater government involvement in medicine with the passing of ObamaCare puts this debate in a new light. If the government decides who gets money for medical treatment, the question of whether fat people deserve medical treatment will become a political issue.

The question of who “deserves” treatment is only conceivable in a welfare state. In a free, capitalist society, people are able to allocate their wealth according to their judgment of the merit of their own and other’s health, including the degree to which they are culpable for their condition. However, there is no rational way to allocate property taken by force.

Does Jake, who became paralyzed because he liked extreme sports, or Kate, who has lung cancer because she is a smoker, or Mary, who has problems because has a tendency towards obesity which she does not try to control with diet or exercise, or Sue, who is dying from old age, and whose life might be slightly extended at tremendous cost deserve my money?

Once the idea that theft is justified because others need something is accepted, there is no objective way to decide which group is more “deserving” or which values are most “needed.” There is no way to make moral evaluations when “need” trumps justice and morality.

Justice and merit are moral concepts. To “deserve” someone’s property, is to have a moral claim to it. We create a claim to someone’s property when we engage in voluntary transactions – such as labor for wages, or goods for services, child care by choosing to bear children, or paying for injury if it is due to our neglect. But to claim that someone “deserves” our wealth merely by the fact of them being alive implies that some human beings have a moral claim on the life and values of others. That is a form of slavery. A modern, democratic and egalitarian form of slavery, but still slavery.

For someone to receive medical treatment, someone else must first create the wealth to pay for it. In a free society, people produce values voluntarily, and exchange them to mutual benefit. But the premise that someone has “a right to healthcare” means “a right to” seize values by force from those who produce them and give them to those who didn’t earn them. In such a slave society, people exist and produce values by permission, to the degree that those in power find them useful. Whether their values are seized directly, such as in socialism, or nominally theirs, but controlled by the state, such as in the fascist state our healthcare system is in, is irrelevant.

Some “moderates” argue that sick people “deserve” medical care when their misfortune is not their fault. But why should it matter whether they are responsible for their condition? People desire all kinds of values, whether cars, iPhones, shoes, friends, plastic surgery, or a long life. Sometimes they succeed in gaining those values, and sometimes they fail – whether it is due to a character flaw, ignorance, or just bad luck. But whatever the reason for their trouble, why does their misfortune give them a right to steal those values from an innocent third party?

If it is impossible to allocate socialized medicine objectively, how is it allocated? It’s simple – the group that ends up getting the loot is the one which has the most guns. In a democracy, where ballots are the bullets, the biggest, most corrupt, and politically-connected group wins. The implied message of their “awareness” campaigns is “my gang has more guns than yours.” The monstrosity of the welfare state is that the more virtuous and productive a person is, the more of his life and values he is forced to sacrifice, and the more unproductive and needy he is, the more he is rewarded for it. Like all forms of statism, medical socialism punishes virtue and rewards vice.

Better a Day Early Than a Day Late

By noreply@blogger.com (Dan Edge) from The Edge of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog



Since it's after midnight, today is officially September 11, 2009. Among other things, I've come to think of this day as "National Military, Cop, and Firefighter Appreciation Day." These civil servants get so little appreciation for what they do, and often get little support from the government to execute their dutues. So 4 years ago, I decided to give Thank You cards to local military, police, and firefighter stations. They were so appreciative, I decided to continue the tradition in New York when I lived there. Now that I'm back in South Carolina, I see no reason to break tradition.

Since I was going to be up at the police station today anyway for issues regarding my recent arrest, I picked up some Thank You cards on the way and dropped one off at the downtown Law Enforcement Center. I even took one to the Detention Center next door, where I had been a guest over the weekend, to show there was no hard feelings. Then on my way home, I dropped by the local Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Recruiting stations to drop off more cards. I encourage anyone who appreciates what these folks do -- and what they stand for -- to adopt this tradition for himself. I paid $3.53 for Thank You cards today. How much do you think it means for them to know how much they're appreciated? Well worth the money and effort! Here's what I wrote:

To the Cops

Better a day early than a day late. Some of us will never forget what happened 8 years ago. To life, liberty, and happiness -- may you serve and protect them always.

To the Military

Better a day early than a day late. Some of us will never forget what happened 8 years ago. To life, liberty, and happiness -- may you always kick [expletive], and look pretty doing so, in their defense.

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

I wrote about my 9/11 experience two years ago, and reprised it on my blog last year. Another new tradition in honor of this fateful day? Why not:

Where Were You? -- Reflections on 9/11

For me, September 11, 2001 began as a normal Tuesday morning in Greenville, SC. I got up, had breakfast, got dressed, and drove to StereoVideo, where I worked as a retail salesman. I arrived at work at about 8:30am. As usual, most of the staff met in the back of the store for a bull-and-smoking session before opening up. At about 8:50am, the owner (who was always late getting in) called to tell us that a plane had crashed into a building in New York City. We wanted to see what was going on, so we turned on the store.

StereoVideo is a high-end electronics store specializing in large, high-definition televisions and powerful audio systems. When we turned on the store, hundreds of thousands of dollars in audio-visual equipment brought the height of consumer technology to bear – to show us a scene of terror. The World Trade Center was on fire. The Sony high-def rear-projector shot rays of light on the wall, displaying a plume of smoke 10 feet tall. The $10k Infinity floor standing speakers boomed their built-in subwoofers as the second plane exploded on impact. It was a terrible spectacle of light and sound.

All day we watched – surrounded by 100 televisions, all showing the same nightmare. As the events of September 11 unfolded, StereoVideo continued to operate. I fought back tears as the wave of attacks continued. People kept coming into the store and would stay for hours, transfixed by images of destruction. To my utter shock, a few customers still wanted to chat about setting up their new home theatre system. So we loaded Shrek into a few of the DVD Players, and Princess Fiona pouted – next to images of tragic murder victims hurling themselves from the top of the World Trade Center. It was surreal.

After we closed the store, I went to a sports bar near the Blood Bank in downtown Greenville. All of the televisions were tuned to news channels, and the bar was alive with sad, angry, and patriotic discussion. I spoke with three or four strangers who shared my grief and rage. We all agreed that whoever was responsible for these attacks deserved prompt and utter destruction. We were at war.

As I approached the Blood Bank, I saw that I had to park half a mile away in order to get close to it. Many others had the same idea as me, and the place was mobbed with patriots offering their blood. A police officer that had just given blood advised me to come back the following day. The staff at the Blood Bank was overwhelmed. When I went the next day, they said to come back in a month, as they were already filled to capacity with blood donations.

In the days and weeks following the September 11 attacks, the country seemed to come together in a way I’d never seen before in my adult life. I finally understood why the adults around me were rejoicing so much when the Berlin Wall fell. Americans demanded justice, and a significant portion of the public had the moral courage to support an all-out war against Islamic Totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, that window of opportunity has passed. Most Americans seem to have forgotten what happened that Tuesday in 2001. It has become just one attack of many – perpetrated by some terrorist group or other – all tied-in to some nebulous “War on Terror” that is going nowhere fast. That is why, every year on the anniversary of September 11, I take the time to remember where I was that day. I remember where I was, how I felt, what I thought, and most importantly, what we need to do to make sure it never happens again.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Where were you?

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->--Dan Edge

In Defense of The Glory of America

By Michael Gold from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Bill Whittle, over at PJ TV, has some good videos up.

1. "Bill Maher, Barack Obama and the Truth About American Exceptionalism" (14 min, 59 sec).

I don't know about the truth of his facts, but they sure are plausible. His evaluation of America as the best country that has ever been is demonstrably and theoretically correct. If Mr. Whittle knew more about art, he could have improved his cultural section with mention of some American painters (e.g., that at Cordair Gallery), movies ("This Land is Mine," "Ninotchka," "Executive Suite," "The Sound of Music," etc.), philosophy (Rand), politics (the Founding Fathers), etc. He is correct, though, to focus on art and other products created in the last two hundred years. Otherwise, we'd be talking about completely different countries, times, and people, who no longer exist and have not for millennia.

Upate (9-7-09, 7:30 AM Houston Time): And what about jazz and swing music, and swing and tap dance?

2. "MSNBC & The Great Liberal Narrative: The Truth About The Tyranny of Political Correctness" (12 min, 56 sec).

What do you think about the videos and ideas in them?

Of course, Mr. Whittle's commentary is not as good as there can be. As good as there can be would have to be provided by someone like Leonard Peikoff or Ayn Rand.

Pot, Meet Kettle!

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

Through Progressive Revival, a religious left blog hosted at Beliefnet, comes an amusing and instructive article accusing America's Roman Catholic bishops of being "cafeteria Catholics."

To set the context for the following explanation of what a "cafeteria Catholic" is, the article notes that, generally, America's Catholic bishops tend to take theocratic stands on the so-called "social issues," and yet sound (at least to its author) more like fiscal conservatives at other times (e.g., They do not get behind major expansons of the welfare state, like physician slavery.):

"Cafeteria Catholics" is a term often used by conservatives to describe members of the church who are not in alignment with Church teaching on every issue. Using this term, conservatives claim that liberals are too willing to pick and choose which teachings they will follow.

Fair enough, and author Paul Gorrell has a point here, too.

But conservatives overlook the reality that the Catholic Church has a very liberal social teaching that places the dignity of the person at its core. This influences the way the Church teaches about aid to the poor, economic justice within taxation systems, and universal health care. Since the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, the Church has formally taught that a social approach to health care was necessary to ensure equal access for all. The burden of providing health care to everyone belonged to the society at large. Catholic Social Ethics has further developed this notion since the Council and consistently articulated support for universal health care within society.

A recent papal encyclical should remove any doubts about the accuracy of the above, although it hasn't in some quarters.

Where the article gets amusing for a moment is where Gorrell, clearly on the moral offensive, decides to go in for the kill. [For some possible amusement at the expense of yours truly, see the Note below.]

It's important to realize that the official teaching on marriage in the Catholic Church has been written by men who have never been married. These men also teach that birth control can never be used by a married couple. Aside from the fact that much of the official teaching of the Church contradicts the understanding of healthy sexuality within the field of modern psychology, it is stunning that those whom the Church authorizes to speak on these topics have often defended, hidden, or participated in a system of sexual abuse that highlights their own deeply disordered relationship with human sexuality. [bold added]

The implied call for his church to adopt a more reasoned approach to sexuality would be laudable were it not made ridiculous at the outset by the fact that not half a minute ago, Gorrell was chiding these very bishops for failing to adhere to the Church's economic teachings. Add to this difficulty the fact that these economic teachings suffer a defect similar to that of the sexual mores he skipped over during his own pass at the buffet: They were also originated by men who did not make a completely rational study of man and his nature before formulating them, much less ever got around to proving the existence of God.

But that's just a quick laugh. Note several things here: (1) Gorrell is the more consistent altruist, and as such, is more in tune with the moral principles of his faith on economic matters. His side will eventually win any debate (such as there can be) on "economic justice" within his religion because... (2) Such debates are circumscribed by certain arbitrary premises that all its members will never examine because they accept them on faith. (3) Any follower of his religion, whose ethical code demands that man act against the requirements of his own nature, must necessarily be of the "cafeteria" variety. (4) This fact makes the inevitable guilt a valuable psychological weapon for anyone participating in that sordid debate. Read on.

With Barack Obama's reinvigoration of his opposition, there are and will be calls for the "next Reagan" and other such attempts to revive the "alliance" between theocrats and individualists. Now the article becomes instructive, because such an alliance would concern us with debates like this and their likely outcome.

Catholic Bishops in the United States, however, have opposed universal health care out of fear that abortion will be included in whatever bill that Congress might pass. Instead of proudly stating the Catholic tradition on universal health care and then demanding that abortion be excluded from public option benefits, the Catholic bishops have started from a place of opposition and, in so doing, failed to uphold a core social teaching of the Church.

This is not the only reason to avoid making such a mistake again, but one look at the basis for some of Obama's "opposition" should show that such calls are ill-advised.

--CAV

Note: Paul Gorrell, or someone claiming to be him, informs me that he is actually no longer a Catholic. This sounds plausible to me, but I cannot presently confirm it one way or the other.

Updates

Today Added a Note.

Sanction of the Victim

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

I'll open this post with a cute and amazingly on-point email joke my Mom sent me this week:

Subject: AMISH VIRUS

You have just received the Amish Virus. Since we do not have electricity nor computers, you are on the honor system. Please delete all of your files.

Thank thee.

Now, on with the show...

This post is not about blog policy (which I keep mainly to myself), but it does start off from one of my policies, namely that I moderate comments in part to keep the discussion civil.

Happily, I find that I rarely actually have to consider rejecting a comment. On top of that, I have also noticed that even the rudest comments can often serve as examples of something I am talking about or as fodder for charity refutations, sometimes even doing half the work for me if the commenter is sufficiently sloppy or unglued.

Rarely does a comment (aside from spam) offer nothing of value to a discussion, but last night, I rejected two (by the same person), to yesterday's post, for that very reason. That said, the comments do accidentally offer grist for the mental mill.

The first I rejected because the commenter mocked another of my commenters. I include it here mainly for context.

Here is the first comment:

Your caricature of Catholicism is ludicrous -- I'd despise it too, if it was as you claim.

The finest, most intelligent gentlemen teachers I ever had were both Catholic priests -- one, a tecaher [sic] of philosophy, the other, a physicist.

"Tortured, prisoner souls" -- gzeesh, spare me the melodrama.

If one is religious, then praying before sex doesn't strike me as off the charts. Nor is it the Catholic Church per se publishing this prayer book, but a Catholic group.

And no, Gus, the Church does not view sex as obscene.

This comment is sort of a mashed-up version of a flame sandwich, in the sense that it actually does bring up some legitimate issues of general interest. One of these, the fact that there are decent people who profess religion, I have touched on before (probably in answer to the same person).

There are other such points. (One is this: Many apologists for evil philosophies evade the practical implications of those philosophies by appealing to the fact that those very philosophies do not explicitly state those implications.) But this post isn't about those points, for the same fundamental reason I refused to post the comment in the first place: The blog is my property and I use it as I see fit. Today, I do not care to address those issues. And yesterday, unfortunately, this person couldn't help but drop an insult in with his comment.

But wait! There's more! If you pay close attention to the above passage, you will see that our firecracker tosser is moving the goal posts behind that puff of smoke. And by "moving the goal posts," I am understating things. He is, in fact, trying to play a completely different game on a completely different field.

Consider the following: "If one is religious, then praying before sex doesn't strike me as off the charts." That is true, but it is also completely beside the point, which is that the whole premise of taking things on faith leads to objectively ridiculous practices. If I believed in ghosts, I might spend Friday evenings conducting seances, too. Seances, like praying before sex, are ridiculous.

The question is this: Why bring this obvious point up at all? The next comment will make that more clear.

Gotta love how you handle contrary ideas -- hey, just don't show them at all! Cool....

Let's talk about that "mindless" set -- oh yes, those people of faith. They can't think for themselves, unlike those brave Randroids who amazingly all think that Frank Lloyd Wright is the best -- the best! architecture of all time. And did I mention fiction? All Randroids must agree that Hugo's "Les Miserables" is the best fiction!! Amazing how many of you can't think beyond your puny box........but don't worry, somewhere out there some Cathoic is praying for your soul.

Gus, have the guts to engage a Catholic (an ex-atheist, ex-Ayn Rand fan)who wishes do disagree with your caricature of the faith.

What are you afraid of? If you can't do that, you're pathetic.

Massive offenses against truth and etiquette aside this person is trying to feel good about himself by placing me -- the proprietor of this blog -- in what he sees as an inescapable bind: Publish a direct insult or "admit" that it is true. (See also, "I dare you to publish this.")

The real problem is this: Even if I wanted to engage this person, I really can not. He admits to being a person "of faith," which is to say that he holds premises in the absence of evidence or proof. I could waste hours talking to this guy, and ultimately see him just shrug, pick up his Bible, thump on it, and say, "I have faith." (I actually watched a creationist do just this back in college once he was backed into a corner.) If I am "afraid" of anything here, it's wasting my time effectively talking to a wall -- one just sentient enough to be able to insult me. Obviously, that does not make me pathetic. (See also: "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World.")

But back to the game-changing. Notice what that last line is meant to do.

There is no way to come out ahead by adding this to a discussion thread: If I publish it and don't say anything about the insults, I'm helping him pretend that his conduct is acceptable. If I publish and do address the insults, it looks like I give a rat's behind about his opinion of me, which is clearly irrational and irrelevant. That, by the way, is on top of wasting time and mental energy. (On re-reading, I realize that, setting aside the rudeness, I probably could have gotten away with just pointing this out.)

Worse still, I would be allowing him to set the terms of the discussion on my blog. The conversation would have ceased being about the catastrophic consequences of allowing the arbitrary to infect one's thinking, and instead been about what a great idea it is to pray before sex, assuming you believe in God -- as if history doesn't already provide plenty of examples of what people have done on that premise, some of it well beyond the merely ridiculous.

And this brings me to one final point, which is that this bile is actually an excellent example of a point I made in a comment:

[T]hey have been trained all their lives NOT to trust their minds. They have had their confidence ruined.

What are most flames designed to do? Evoke a poorly-controlled expression of a negative emotional response. And what is an emotion? It is, as Ayn Rand once pointed out, "an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises."

It causes me to wonder about a person when he deliberately sets out to insult a total stranger in a one-to-one email communication. (Which is what the second "comment" really is.) I wonder whether this is: (1) a plea for attention from a total stranger who has no reason to care, (2) an admission on one's own part that one has nothing better to do than attack the values of another person, and (3) an admission that one lives in a personal hell. The last is a serious admission, but in any event the desired payoff is that the other person will respond in kind.

The only remaining question that needs answering is this: Why would I respond at all? (Or, in the present context, why would I post this as a comment, vice dissecting it in a post.) Because I cared on some level about the insult. The hope is that deep down, I feel this person is right, and that I, too, lack self-confidence and therefore exist second-handedly enough to feel on some level that if I don't do as he says, I really am a coward. This is a seedy attempt to get me to not just take an insult, but to help him dish it out.

It drives this person batty that I disagree with him. But, if he's right, why do I bother him? And if he's wrong, why is he wasting time on me? He admits that he won't check his own premises, but yet he feels a need to browbeat me into carelessly accepting them so he can "win" an argument with me.

My speculation about why some people try to provoke flame wars is that seeing other people throwing fits of impotent rage is a form of validation. Verbalized, it might be something like, "See! I'm not so bad. Everyone else is irrational, too." Whatever the reason, this is not a confident or productive activity.

Well, this led to some interesting speculation, but the purpose of philosophy is not to gaze at one's navel, or to argue pointlessly, or to have fights. It is to live one's own life, and I have some living to do.

And that -- not that I owe anyone an explanation -- is why I summarily rejected the above comments.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Some minor edits and clarifications.
9-7-09: Deleted extra line after first paragraph.

Three's a Crowd

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

It was all I could do not to make any number of adolescent-sounding cracks about the following. (I even considered spitting out a top-ten list of facetious headlines, like "Demographers Predict Downward Trend among Catholics.")

I will say that some notions are so absurd as to merit on an intellectual level only the brief consideration of ridicule.

Roman Catholic couples are being encouraged to pray together before they have sex.

A book published by a prominent Church group invites those setting out on married life to recite the specially-composed Prayer Before Making Love.

It is aimed at 'purifying their intentions' so that the act is not about selfishness or hedonism.

Leave it to the Catholic Church to come up with an "adult" version of something from a favorite book of mine -- a version that nobody who would ever want to be taken seriously again would dare write...


According to the very funny book, Growing Up Catholic, it used to be common practice for nuns to patrol high school dances and tell young couples to "Leave room for the Holy Spirit," if they got "too close" to one another.

I call the book funny with qualification, because the humor is necessarily of a highly personal nature. There is really nothing funny about a malevolent institution that would invade every aspect of your life, including your soul, being entrusted with children. But children are innocent and, in a modern, semi-rational country like the United States, we nevertheless had a strong chance to form minds of our own.

Part of the Gordian knot of religion for me is that many of my childhood memories occur within the sometimes absurd context of Catholic school. In particular, I recall finding things all the funnier because I knew them to be absurd and knew that I wasn't "supposed" to laugh at them.

For example, I still chuckle when I remember looking up just in time to see a kid denting a can of food on his head as we stood in line, only to get an immediate, swift slap on the behind from one of the nuns that propelled him forward a step or two.

I cherish that mirth all the more now because I see it for what it was: the spark of an unbroken, independent mind finding enjoyment in a life it was supposed to renounce. (Some of our teachers saw this, too, and some of them wanted to extinguish it.) This is not to say that I escaped all intellectual or spiritual harm, but my memories are what they are. I can enjoy a book like Growing up Catholic without then mistaking the Church and its teachings for the source of the kind of benevolent memories that form the basis of much of the humor.


All that said, there actually is one more thing that needs to be addressed. Christianity, particularly as influenced by Plato, encourages people to compartmentalize morality and practicality -- and indeed the spiritual and the physical -- to the point of regarding them as antagonistic. One psychological consequence of such a separation (the soul-body dichotomy) is that one tends to depersonalize moral guidance -- to see it as "issued from on high" and not really think about it as applied to one's own life.

As a result, most people will just laugh at the proposed divine menage-a-trois, but in the backs of their minds, they'll feel a tug of guilt. The purveyors of the moral-practical and soul-body dichotomies are responsible for this, and this explains part of the purpose of such foolishness.

Let's drop those pretenses for a moment. Let's stop giving clergymen and would-be theocrats a pass and really think about what it is they are doing, in earthly terms.

Were someone to make unsolicited demands, in your face, for you to change your bedroom behavior, wouldn't you find it presumptuous at a minimum, if not downright creepy? So what's the difference if such a person is wearing a Roman collar and claiming he's speaking on behalf of a figment?

And yet these are the same people telling us that one of life's greatest pleasures is obscene!

-- CAV

Objectivist charged with corrupting the youth

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

Dan Edge, an Objectivist activist living in Greenville, South Carolina was arrested over the weekend by the Greenville police. Mr. Edge's crime, you ask? Nothing less than contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Edge was protesting the Greenville City Council's recent enactment of an "emergency" 10PM curfew for minors, a law that Edge says curtails the freedom of the peaceable in supposed answer to the crimes committed by the un-peaceable.

According to Edge, such freedom was an important part of his development:

Along with many other Greenville natives, I was greatly enriched by experiences, conversations, and new friends discovered in downtown Greenville – some even after (gasp!) 10pm on a weekend night – and I never committed a crime or created a nuisance there. These experiences enriched my life and contributed to making me into the cultured, responsible adult I am today. It would be a great shame to take that same opportunity away from responsible young men and women, especially in a time when Greenville is becoming more and more a rich source of southern culture.

And thus Edge's Saturday evening protest against the curfew, which went fine until a departing minor had the audacity to say "Thank You" to Edge after the 10PM hour, a crime that led to Edge's arrest for corrupting the youth (Edge provides a detailed narrative of his arrest here.)

What does Greenville have next in store for Mr. Edge? Hemlock perhaps? Socrates would be proud, but we should be appalled.

Barack Obama: Seducer of the Young

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

A very brief but important article on the fundamental purpose of the health care bill is circulating and with which President Barack Obama and his cadre of communist and pinkish radicals, czars and advisors would agree with nods of approval, and which most Democrats would endorse, had they but the nerve. President Barack Obama will soon plead with Congress to stop dragging its collective feet over “non-essential“ and “distracting” aspects of the “reform” bill, such as its astronomical cost and its usurpation of the right of Americans to reject it, and just pass the damned thing. “The Real Meaning of Health Care Reform” makes this crucial but neglected point:

The primary goal of health care "reform" is the enactment of the legal basis for totalitarianism. So many of the provisions of the health care bill, to a close reading, set a precedent for government control of every single basis of our lives -- health care or not.

That’s it. If the government expropriates the health care realm in any style, shape or form-- no matter how watered down the bill is, if it is reduced from 1,600 pages to merely 400, if it focuses on controlling expenditures and not on choice, if it gives one a temporary but penalized option other than the “public option,” the fancy trimmings are all irrelevant -- it will automatically grant the government the legal power over one’s body and it will govern all actions one might take to sustain it. It needn’t be named after Senator Ted Kennedy to be a nullification of one’s right to live for one’s own sake.

The Crown’s Stamp Act of 1765 had an unchallenged legal basis, dating back to 1650: the will and power of Parliament to legislate for the British colonies. This Act was repealed exactly a year after its passage, as a consequence of violent opposition to it in the colonies, but the repeal was accompanied by the Declaratory Act, which asserted that Parliament retained “the full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.”

Few colonists paid the attention to the Declaratory Act it deserved. Most were celebrating their victory over Parliament. A few regarded it as Parliament’s peevish, ill-mannered means of saving face after a humiliating defeat. But it was a loaded gun. Parliament passed it, ergo it had a legal basis.

In short, the Crown said: You may have won this round, but, nevertheless, we own you, “in all cases whatsoever.”

Obama’s broadcast speech to the nation’s schools complements that totalitarian purpose. The text of it, if Obama sticks to the script, is, on the surface, a yawner. Many a student will feel a desire to nod off. The speech can be faulted only for its patronizing banality. But, as one blogger noted: “It’s not the speech, it’s the subtext.” And subtext there is, very subtly woven throughout Obama’s innocuous blandishments to study hard and to mind what adults say. The subtext declares: I own you. Or, rather, we, the state, own you. This point was made last week in the “I Pledge” video as a prefatory note to America’s school children.

Of course, many newspaper columnists are wondering why the speech is being attacked and called propagandistic. They don’t understand what the hue and cry are about. After all, didn’t Ronald Reagan and George Bush address school children? But, the subtext is invisible to them, or they see nothing wrong with it.

Here are instances of the subtext, and one major gaffe.

Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team. (Paragraph 13.)

I can think of numerous mayors, Senators and Supreme Court Justices -- including a few Presidents -- who didn’t know about the Constitution, or who dismissed it as being as antiquated as a Babylonian law tablet, but that never stopped them from becoming what they are. That’s the gaffe. But, on to the subtext.

What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future. (Paragraph 15.)

Which challenges? Fill in the blanks, children. It’s a multiple choice question. But stick to the choices we give you. My friend Professor Bill Ayers has drawn up a list, in consultation with my many czars and advisors. But never forget that we are a nation, and we must all pull together to meet those challenges.

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that -- if you quit on school -- you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country. (Paragraph 17.)

Which difficult problems? Again, fill in the blanks, and choose from Professor Ayers’ list. If you quit on us, it means that you see a conflict between our goals and yours. That would be a selfish thing to do. Fulfillment can be found in selfless service to your country.

And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you - don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country. (Paragraph 38.)

If you give up on yourself, you become useless to your country and a needless charge to society. Then we must and will determine your future as a servant of the state. If you don’t want us to tell you what to do and when and why, then do as we say.

So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country? (Paragraph 41.)

We expect you to make selfless contributions to the country, regardless of what careers you choose to follow. How would you be able to live with yourself, knowing that you did everything for yourself, and not for your country? You are but a cell of society, and society expects your best, and for you to give back to it. Remember what a great president once said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” That is all I am asking of you, too.

Contradicting the subtext is this statement:

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll wind up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future. (Paragraph 24.)

Come again? Or must the future I make for myself first be vetted by the state? That’s what brighter students might ask of the President. He would have no answer for them, and might ask whoever on his staff wrote that statement what the hell he meant by it.

If the adults won’t listen, go after the kids. Can you think of a better way to inculcate the character of totalitarian servitude and obeisance in children than this speech? Of making seductive enlistment in the Obama Youth or Ayers’ New Pioneers? Of having children believe from the start of their lives that the government has a right to control ever single basis of their lives, and that this is a moral norm?

If you wanted better proof of how Obama, his cadre in the White House, his appointees, and the Democrats in Congress want to own Americans “in all cases whatsoever,” read a transcript of Obama’s speech, and watch the video. Judge for yourself. His speech is an invitation to children to become moral monsters.

For years I have kept a page from The New York Times. It features a teen-aged Bill Clinton shaking hands with JFK. It is a symbol, not so much of a generational link, but of a philosophical link, of the passing on of the political torch of statism and collectivism. Now we have Barack Obama reaching out to shake hands with another generation.

This has got to stop. And if Americans have any kind of duty to their country, that is what they must stop. For their own sakes, and for the sake of their children.

Senator Ted Kennedy: Rest in Perdition

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

On the occasion of Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy’s death last week, ABC News posted on its website the question: "What do the Kennedys mean to you?” and invited readers to comment. Most of the comments were severely critical of especially Ted Kennedy: a sodden, corrupt, hypocritical, power-lusting ogre, an appropriate climax of an elitist, disreputable succession of Kennedys. I had nothing positive to say about him, either, nor about any of the Kennedys. They were major movers of the nation in the direction of fascism. What they meant to me was the incremental destruction of this country.

The mainstream media currently is besotted with admiration for Kennedy and wailing over his passing. You would think that this was Argentina, when that country grieved over the deaths of Juan and Evita Peron -- a grief orchestrated and mandated by the government and its controlled news media and press. For example, Eugene Robinson, a columnist for The Washington Post, waxes nearly poetic in his tribute to Kennedy, “A Prince‘s Fate“:

“Princes often have lives that are difficult, even within the context of wealth and privilege. They have to find ways to keep from being eaten alive by ambition that can never be requited….The hardest task for an eternal prince is to construct an original identity of which he can be proud -- an identity that allows him to live a life of purpose, meaning and impact. Ted Kennedy accomplished this feat by becoming the greatest senator of our age and serving as the liberal conscience of the nation.”

Robinson’s thesis is that Ted Kennedy’s ambition to become president was foiled by many things, and so he remained a “prince.” Robinson is wrong: Kennedy’s ambition was requited. He was responsible for much of the post-Rooseveltian welfare state and regulatory legislation that currently burdens the country. And it was not so much ambition that motivated Kennedy, as vengeance on a country that would not grant him the status of “savior” or “king.”

Robinson, like many other columnists and news media pundits, glossed over Kennedy’s essentially malign character to portray him as a perfect model of a self-sacrificing humanitarian. But his blinders-defined tribute to Kennedy is almost tolerable compared to most politicians’ expressions of admiration. Consider New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s puerile, glassy-eyed hosanna:

"In the Senate, Ted Kennedy was our sun--the center of our universe. To be pulled by his strong gravitational field, to bask in his warmth was a privilege, an honor, and, for many of us, even a life-changing experience.”

What follows are my expanded comments on the ABC site on the Kennedys.

Ted Kennedy stunned the nation in 2008 when he endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president. And while it was coincidence that Obama, as President, was vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard when Kennedy succumbed to brain cancer, it seemed to be a politically appropriate place for him to be, for that millionaire’s retreat was where Kennedy got away with what could only be generously called “manslaughter.” That is where, thanks to Kennedy, Mary Jo Kopechine met her death at the negligent hands of Ted Kennedy. For some details on how he lied about the incident and was released from criminal responsibility by the political influence of his father, see David A. Patten’s account here. Patten, however honest an account he delivers about Kennedy’s character flaws (including his incomprehensible answer to the question of why he wanted to be president), still extols his political career, crediting him approvingly with “perhaps the most impressive legislative record of the past half century.”

It would be appropriate to go back a few years and begin with Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr., the “Godfather” of a political dynasty. It is a fair analogy to say that he was the Boston-Irish family patriarch to Vito Corleone’s New York-Italian patriarch, rising to power and influence through a combination of “business” and politics in roughly the same period, driven by power-lust and envy of the “smart set” and social establishment and determined to become part of that glittering parade of fashion and wealth. He established the leitmotif for his sons’ characters and careers. Most biographies of Kennedy Senior are carefully crafted narratives that skip over the unsavory aspects of his career, such as his alleged bootlegging empire during Prohibition (by importing liquor from Canada and Cuba). Near the end of Prohibition, he procured the exclusive rights to import Scotch whiskey from the U.K. and Canada into the U.S.

In all his business dealings, Kennedy Senior was not so much a productive businessman as a manipulator of already produced wealth and an exploiter of regulatory controls. His first job after graduating from Harvard in 1912 was as assistant state bank examiner. He helped run the Bethlehem Steel shipyards in Massachusetts during WWI, when he met and became close to Franklin D. Roosevelt, then assistant secretary of the Navy. He was the first chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He was a lifelong Democrat and significant ally of Roosevelt, and staunch advocate of Roosevelt‘s domestic policies. FDR appointed Kennedy, an Anglophobe, ambassador to the United Kingdom in 1938.

Kennedy Senior’s prime ambition was to become president of the United States. One gaffe, however, doomed that prospect. As ambassador to the U.K., in November 1940, during the Battle of Britain, he asserted that Britain’s fight against the Nazis was not to save “democracy,” but merely to survive. Now, this is a curious dichotomy. If “democracy” is meant to imply a state of semi-freedom and semi-representative government (and not pure mob rule, which is what it actually means), of course its survival may be seen as a paramount value. The U.S., he implied, should view Britain’s opposition to Hitler as just a means to buy America time to prepare to fight the Nazis, insinuating that he did not otherwise care what happened to Britain. “Democracy” in Britain, he stated, was “finished” and “it may be here” (in the United States). He was perfectly willing to avoid a fight with Germany by concluding a peace treaty with Hitler. His remarks were not well received by either Roosevelt or the American public.

That being said, Kennedy Senior’s sons benefited from his ill-gotten largess. Like father, like son. Not one of them ever held a productive, wealth producing job in his life. Only two of them ever ventured into the real world: Joe Junior, the eldest, whose experimental bomber blew up in England during WWII, and John F. Kennedy, who at least saw some action in the Pacific, although the full story of PT109 may or not ever be known. Because of the draft, Teddy Kennedy enlisted in the Army (signing up for four years, instead of the intended two, but his father got him out of that, as well), and landed a plumb assignment in Paris, France.

All four Kennedy sons, “Joe Junior,“ JFK, Robert and "Ted," grew up as spoiled aristocrats, completely insulated from the productive world and responsibility for their own lives and actions. The real world, the world that produced all their clothes, cars, and pricy baubles, was their oyster. They only knew how to milk it and corrupt themselves in the process. Things could be had, never made. They were sent to the "best" schools where they were taught that the productive, wealth-producing world was their private realm -- that it wasn't "fair" and ready to be redistributed to their dependents -- if they went into politics. And, that's where they went.

When they could take time from their drinking and hedonism.

But, one doesn’t go into politics without a political philosophy, however crude, populist, or sophisticated it may be. The sons adopted the statist, collectivist, and socialist philosophies of their teachers -- and the cynical pragmatism of their father. That was fine with Joseph Kennedy. He knew nothing about living a productive life, either. He never had to earn a living, never had to sustain his own life -- in terms of trading values. It is interesting to note that Kennedy Senior was impressed by Harold Laski, the premier British socialist of the time, and wished his sons to study under him at the London School of Economics. “Joe Junior,” being groomed for a political career which his father hoped would lead to the White House, spent a year with Laski before enrolling in Harvard Law School. In 1935 JFK enrolled at the LSE with the intention of studying political economy for a year under Laski’s tutelage, but an illness hospitalized him shortly after his enrollment. During the autumn of the same year, he enrolled in Princeton University, but was forced to leave after contracting jaundice. The next autumn, he began attending Harvard College.

Much of what burdens this country today, including a welfare state for the poor and for pull-peddling businesses, and especially the fascist/socialist agenda that is inculcated in virtually every level of education today, we owe to the Kennedys.

In that respect, Barack Obama is just a Johnnie-Come-Lately. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of his bid for the White House was an act of hate for America. He knew what Obama's credentials were -- a community-organizing socialist who has appointed to power and is advised by a company of communists and socialists.

Some of Kennedy’s “accomplishments” include: strengthening OSHA‘s powers; a quadrupling of spending for cancer funding and research (but, should government be involved in medical research? No); WIC program (Women, Infants and Children, administered by the Federal Food and Nutrition Service ); Meals On Wheels; Title IX; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; Americans With Disabilities Act; Medical Relief Act; No Child Left Behind Act; Anti-Apartheid Act; National Military Child Care Act; Direct Lending Program; Family and Medical Leave Act; Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; Children's Health Insurance Program; Funding for the AMBER Alert system; Family Opportunity Act. And much, much more. Not one of them a legitimate, Constitutionally-mandated government action.

The Kennedys should be damned, not revered or mourned. The whole corrupt, smarmy, elitist lot of them.

When a true, objective history is written about the second half of the 20th century, about how the freest country in history slid into statism and political and economic collapse, the Kennedys will be dealt the justice and judgment they have dodged and been denied for so long -- by historians, by students, by the press.

Ted Kennedy died of a malignant soul cancer long ago -- of corruption, of hating America as a free country of free individuals. One could say that the tumor that infected his character finally spread to his brain. In all justice, no true American -- no American who valued his own freedom, his own liberty, his own life -- should mourn Kennedy's passing. No flags should be ordered to half-mast for this traitor. Americans should say: Good riddance! And we hope Mary Jo Kopechine waited for him at the gates of hell with her own pitchfork, for if there is a hell, that is where Ted Kennedy has gone.

May he rest in perdition.

Rational Jenn on Back Talk

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

As my regular readers know, I'm hugely interested in and appreciative of Rational Jenn's blogging on parenting. Paul and I don't have any children, and we plan not to make any. However, I find the general principles Jenn discusses both fascinating in themselves, as well as useful for my interactions with other people, as well as with my dog. (Seriously! Assume positive intent!) Plus, I simply like reading thoughtful people write about lives that are so very different from mine: it expands my acquaintance with the ways of the world.

I was particularly struck by a recent post on "back talk," however. Now I was a bit ho-hum about the topic with her first post -- PD Tool Card: Back Talk. It was all well and good, but that's not a problem relevant to my life. And the same for most of the second post -- More about Back Talk -- until I read the story about how she explained the need for kindness in communication via the Trader Principle and the results thereof. Wowowow. Kids are really, really remarkable creatures.

Also, while I'm promoting Rational Jenn, I should mention that the new OGrownups e-mail list -- managed by her and C. August -- has 128 members. Hooray! I've found the discussions excellent so far.

Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I know that many of you heard about these new Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups starting in Colorado this fall on my first podcast, but I thought I should post a text announcement too. Please feel free to spread the word!

Hence:

Front Range Objectivism is pleased to announce a new project: Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups (ASRG). Groups are now forming in Longmont, Colorado Springs, and Denver.

In these reading groups, members read and discuss Ayn Rand's epic novel Atlas Shrugged over the course of twenty weekly meetings. Each meeting lasts ninety minutes; it covers about sixty pages of the novel. Discussion is guided by questions prepared by me (Diana Hsieh) and given to members in advance.

FRO's Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups are open to not just to Objectivists but to any fan of the novel interested in discussing the characters, events, and ideas of the novel in greater depth. Based on the group that we ran over the summer, I'm willing to guarantee that participants will learn more than they thought possible -- and have lots of good fun.

About the three groups:

• Colorado Springs Atlas Shrugged Reading Group (Atlas3) will meet on Thursdays from 7:00 to 8:30 pm at Pike's Perk (14 S Tejon Street) in Colorado Springs. It will start on October 1st. The group is managed by Diana Hsieh (diana@frontrangeobjectivism.com). You must have read Atlas Shrugged at least once before to participate in this group.
  
  Interested? View more information or subscribe to the e-mail list.
  
  
• Longmont Atlas Shrugged Reading Group (Atlas2) will meet on Thursdays from 7:00 to 8:30 pm at the Borders (1101 S. Hover Street) in Longmont. It will start on October 1st. The group is managed by Ari Armstrong (ari@frontrangeobjectivism.com). You must have read Atlas Shrugged at least once before to participate in this group.
  
  Interested? View more information or subscribe to the e-mail list.
  
  
• Auraria Campus Objectivist Club will read Atlas Shrugged on the same model as FRO's ASRGs. The club meets on Tuesdays, 6:00 to 7:30 pm, in Tivoli Room 140 on the Auraria Campus in Denver. Its first meeting was on August 25th; it will start Atlas Shrugged on September 15th. The Auraria Campus Objectivists is managed by Kirk Barbera (johngalt.ucd@gmail.com). You need not have read Atlas Shrugged before to participate in this group.
  
  Interested? Subscribe to the club's Google Group.

Please don't sign up to any of these mailing lists unless you plan to attend at least some of the meetings. You need not be able to attend every meeting, however.

If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to e-mail me.

Could These Books Be Banned?

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Steve Simpson of the Institute for Justice alerted me to this great press release on the upcoming Supreme Court case on regulating political speech. Here's the opening:

Could These Books Be Banned?

As Supreme Court Considers Ban on "Hillary: The Movie," Institute for Justice Asks if First Amendment Protects "Top Ten" Political Books

Arlington, Va.--What do Bill Clinton, Peggy Noonan, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Maureen Dowd and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth founder John O'Neil have in common?

All wrote books that could have been banned, just like "Hillary: The Movie," the film at the heart of the campaign finance case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear new arguments in the case Wednesday, Sept. 9, in an unusual session ordered after justices appeared troubled by the government's suggestion during the first oral argument that it could ban corporate-funded books. Indeed, Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, a leading advocate of campaign finance regulations, admitted this week to The New York Times, "A campaign document in the form of a book can be banned."

Today, the Institute for Justice released a "top ten" list of political advocacy books from the last four presidential election cycles and asked: If the First Amendment doesn't protect "Hillary: The Movie," would it protect books like these?

To find out its list of ten books, go read the press release. It's a great press release, I think. It does not merely state its view. It intrigues readers by presenting striking concrete effects of a bad court decision, then invites them to think seriously about the principles of free speech:

"Speech is speech, no matter who is speaking, who funds it or in what form it comes," continued Simpson. "The same ideas do not become dangerous because they are funded by corporations or because they appear in an ad or film instead of a book or newspaper. The Supreme Court must return to first principles and protect all speech, regardless of the speaker, and overturning Austin and McConnell is a critical first step."

"Political ads, books and films, like 'Hillary: The Movie' or Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' contribute to a robust and healthy debate, and they all deserve the fullest protection of the First Amendment," said IJ Senior Attorney Bert Gall. "What's at stake in Citizens United is whether the First Amendment protects this speech from censorship if Congress decides that it prefers silence over debate. The Supreme Court should reject censorship and open the floodgates to all speakers--and then let citizens and voters decide for themselves."

While I do think that a proper philosophical defense of freedom of speech needs to dig deeper, that's obviously sufficient for a press release.

So... keep up the good work, IJ!

Well. He is from Hawaii...

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

Prima facie -- that's the Latin equivalent for "at first glance" -- it might sound both well-timed and encouraging that the administration of President Barack Obama, who hails from Hawaii, has decided that the Justice Department will step up enforcement of Civil Rights law.

Eric Holder's push would seem well-timed on the face of it because Hawaii's longstanding racial problems seem to have worsened lately. Glenn Reynolds quotes the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Celia Padron went on a Hawaiian vacation last year, lured by the prospect of beautiful beaches and friendly people. She, her husband and two teenage daughters enjoyed the black sand beach at Makena State Park on Maui. But a Hawaiian girl accosted her two teenage daughters, saying, "Go back to the mainland" and "Take your white ass off our beaches," says Padron, a pediatric gastroenterologist in New Jersey.

When her husband, 68 at the time, stepped between the girls, three young Hawaiian men slammed him against a vehicle, cutting his ear, and choked and punched him, Padron says. Police officers persuaded the Padrons not to press charges, saying it would be expensive for them to return for court appearances and a Hawaiian judge would side with the Hawaiian assailants, the doctor contends.

This cultural rot includes sympathy for the idea of legally forbidding whites to vote in Hawaii.

And Holder's push would seem -- again, on the surface -- to be encouraging. From the New York Times:

To bolster a unit that has been battered by heavy turnover and a scandal over politically tinged hiring under the Bush administration, the Obama White House has also proposed a hiring spree that would swell the ranks of several hundred civil rights lawyers with more than 50 additional lawyers, a significant increase for a relatively small but powerful division of the government.

The division is "getting back to doing what it has traditionally done," Mr. Holder said in an interview. "But it's really only a start. I think the wounds that were inflicted on this division were deep, and it will take some time for them to fully heal."

Unfortunately, as anyone who has experienced the annoyance of interacting with a bigot or suffered the real harm of discriminatory law will know, surface appearances aren't everything.

The first passage quoted above unfortunately veers off into a discussion of "hate crime," which is actually fortuitous because it leads nicely into what is wrong with Holder's initiative. As I have stated in the past regarding hate crime legislation:

The proper response to hate crime legislation is simple. First, abolish it. Second, throw the book at criminals for their actual crimes rather than for what they think. Our government exists to protect us from the initiation of force on the part of others (i.e., from fraud, theft, and murder). But holding a belief, however repugnant, does not, as Thomas Jefferson might put it, "pick someone’s pocket or break his leg." The only valid reason to consider someone's beliefs in a criminal case is to establish intent. This is already part of criminal law. The crime should be punished the same regardless of the belief system of its perpetrator.

In other words, the proper function of the government is to protect individual rights, and hate crimes legislation actually does nothing towards this end. Rather, by attacking freedom of speech, it violates individual rights.

So what has this to do with Holder's announcement? Everything. For Holder is not getting ready to make sure that Hawaiians -- and all Americans -- are protected equally under the law, but to intensify enforcement of laws that, in fact, violate individual rights.

As part of this shift, the Obama administration is planning a major revival of high-impact civil rights enforcement against policies, in areas ranging from housing to hiring, where statistics show that minorities fare disproportionately poorly. President George W. Bush's appointees had discouraged such tactics, preferring to focus on individual cases in which there is evidence of intentional discrimination.

It is bad enough that there are laws on the books which violate the property rights of individuals by preventing them from deciding with whom they will do business, but at least under the old regime, Justice was focusing on whether someone actually discriminated against someone else.

But now, apparently, one will not be judged as an individual any more when it comes to these laws, but according to which racial category one belongs and whether what he has done in the daily course of his affairs looks, statistically, like he might have engaged in racial discrimination. (Which is not necessarily wrong, as Walter Williams recently pointed out.) The timing of Holder's announcement turns out to be simply -- and ironically -- coincidental.

So, despite superficial appearances, Barack Obama is not stepping up to the plate to protect individual citizens equally under the law. He is not taking steps to ameliorate a problem that should, arguably, be familiar to him. He is not taking up the legitimate mantle of the struggle for racial equality that saw an end to Jim Crow. Instead, he is running with the pack of wolves that subverted that struggle and turned it into an effort to establish new discriminatory laws that simply injure different classes of the citizens he has sworn to protect.

I am extremely disappointed in Barack Obama, but when we look deeper, we see that his political opposition is far from blameless: That Bush and the GOP lacked the intestinal fortitude to repeal such laws is not only damning for them, it is coming home to roost for all of us now.

At the rate Barack Obama is going, the next election cycle promises to be a slaughter for his party. The time to demand that the GOP start repealing laws that violate individual rights is now.

-- CAV

A Whole Foods Buycott

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

Pursuant to a recent post, reader Dismuke emails me about an activity you may be interested in, which is an outgrowth of the Tea Party demonstrations:

The national leadership team of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition this morning announced a series of Tea Party Buycott events designed to support John Mackey and the Whole Foods grocery chain. Mackey is the CEO whose op-ed in The Wall Street Journal opposing Obamacare and supporting free market health care reform has sparked unprecedented and unwarranted attacks from left wing propagandists.

The first two events are scheduled for Tuesday evening, September 1, 2009 in St. Louis, Missouri and Dallas, Texas, with additional events in other cities and locales to come. The St. Louis event will be held at the Whole Foods store located in Town and Country, Missouri off Clayton Road and will begin at 6 pm. The Dallas kickoff event will be held at the Whole Foods Market located at 11700 Preston Rd., Dallas, Texas and will begin at 7 pm. Details of these Tea Party Buycotts and future buycotts can be found online at http://www.teapartybuycott.com.

If you are participating in either of these or know more, feel free to leave a comment.

Two more things I more or less randomly thought of upon hurriedly posting this... (1) I am glad to see that the Tea Party folks are characterizing themselves as "fiscally conservative." (2) Were I -- as someone pretty unfamiliar with the stores -- to participate in such an event, I might consider showing up a day or so before to become familiar with the layout of the store. One drawback I can see to one of these events is having a huge mass of people who don't know where anything is in the store at once attempting to do their weekly shopping!

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Added last paragraph.

The Missing Cost

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

Whipping through my feed reader this morning, I noticed that there is a recent post at Marginal Revolution titled, "A cost-benefit analysis of high-speed rail." The post raises several economic objections to a cost-benefit analysis held to show that a high-speed rail link between Dallas and Houston would not be a bad idea.

I have often complained here that such analyses -- while they may be interesting and illustrative -- are in fact a poor way to fight against the inappropriate use of government. This is because they fail to challenge the underlying premise that the government ought to be doing anything except protecting individual rights. At best, you'll indicate that some idea or other is a waste of money and undercut some popular support from it. At worst, you'll find that something is apparently cost-neutral or even beneficial in the sense that the economy as a whole might grow more as a result of the particular "investment" you are considering.

No matter what you conclude from such an analysis, however, you are dropping context. Regular readers will know this, but I do not recall, until this morning, coming up with a nice, short way, of introducing the issue. That is what this post, through its title, is all about.

In our mixed economy, some sectors are more government-controlled than others. Transportation is an excellent example. Roads must, in fact, be built and, while I am sure we'd be far better off on many levels if the government got out of the road-building business entirely, the fact is that many cost-benefit analyses will show that the government "should" build certain proposed roads.

What all such analyses fail to account for is the unseen cost of lost freedom, which is far and away higher even than the more commonly-known economic costs Frederic Bastiat has brought to our attention by identifying the Fallacy of the Broken Window. Some of that cost sometimes manifests as further government controls, economic or not, that arise once the damage of a given intervention becomes apparent enough.

But that remains only a part of the cost. The real cost is that any time the government does anything but protect individual rights, someone's freedom has been infringed upon. Indeed, such analyses fail to object to the fact that the government has no right to force citizens take the risks of such involuntary "investments" and furthermore, even when a cost-benefit analysis does show that some proposed course of action is "profitable" (and it turns out to be correct), those who might have invested of their own accord are deprived of the opportunity to profit. But the real failure of such analyses is that a longstanding, and very bad precedent is being allowed to become more firmly entrenched in our cultural milieu when we desperately need to destroy it root and branch.

Anyone who advocates capitalism should approach cost-benefit analyses with great caution, and should always qualify them by bringing up the hidden cost: Freedom. That is, government resources which should be devoted to protecting individual rights are instead being used to violate them. In the process, the body politic grows accustomed to its chains, and less likely to notice new ones.

-- CAV

RSR: Episode #1: The Launch

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I'm pleased -- and a bit nervous, I must admit -- to announce that I've begun podcasting. My podcast is called "Rationally Selfish Radio" -- and here's the very first episode:

Episode #1: The Launch

• Length: 27:39 minutes
  
• Size: 13.2 MB
  
• Topics: About Diana Hsieh; Front Range Objectivism's Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups, Philosophy in Action: Wedding No-Show

For the moment, I've just thrown the audio file on DianaHsieh.com. I was hoping to upload it to a podcast host with a nice feed and the like. Unfortunately, I'm traveling at the moment, and my internet connection is so spotty as to be nearly useless this evening. (I suspect that the broadband company is sending some bytes on the backs of turtles as part of a government project to combat testudine unemployment.)

For the next month or so, I plan to post a new podcast every Tuesday and Friday. I'll post them here on NoodleFood, and I'll also create a feed. You'll also be able to subscribe via iTunes. I hope to have all that settled by the time I release the second podcast on Friday.

This fall, as I'm getting started, my podcasts will be somewhat eclectic. I want to try out a wide variety of segments and formats. I want to experiment -- to discover what I like doing and what I do well. Moreover, I need to cultivate my skills. While a graduate student, I did a fair amount of speaking -- mostly in the form of teaching, but also some lecturing. Podcasting -- and radio, which I ultimately want to do -- is more demanding. It's a purely audio medium, so I cannot use my usual array of bodily movements, gestures, and facial expressions to convey meaning. Also, I cannot get any feedback from an audience -- not only via their questions and comments but even more importantly from their body language too. So I have much to learn about using this new medium well.

For now, I'd like two things from you:

• Tell me what you like and dislike about my podcasts -- as concerns not just substance but also style. You are welcome to post comments, questions, and criticisms to the relevant NoodleFood comment thread. You can also e-mail me at diana@dianahsieh.com.
  
  
• Tell me what topics you'd like to hear me discuss on the podcast. Again, you can e-mail me questions to diana@dianahsieh.com. As I indicate in this first podcast, I'm particularly interested in questions pertaining to the real-life application of philosophic principles.

And now... go take a listen: Episode #1: The Launch.

Update: One point that I forgot to mention: Any questions that you send me to answer on the podcast will be anonymized, unless you tell me otherwise. Feel free to suggest a pseudonym, if you like!

The Objectivism Seminar: Past and Future

By Greg Perkins from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Objectivism Seminar just wrapped up its intensive tour of Dr. Leonard Peikoff's seminal book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. It was great!

Front Range Objectivism, Updated

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I'm delighted to announce that I've seriously overhauled the Front Range Objectivism web site to reflect all the latest and greatest work of the most fabulous Objectivist community group in the whole history of mankind. (Seriously!)

The Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups are FRO's newest project. You can hear more about them in the podcast I posted earlier today.

Hannah Krening on Health Care Reform

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Front Range Objectivism member Hannah Krening recently sent this message to her federal representative Mike Coffman and GOP Chairman Michael Steele (in response to his PJTV interview, I think). I really like it, so I'm posting it with her permission. She writes:

As a taxpayer, breast cancer survivor and one whose first husband lost a long battle with cancer, I want to say that the current proposed "reform" of health care adds up to one thing for me: I hope I never have a life-threatening condition again if any proposal to further involve government in my health care becomes reality. And I hope that nobody I love has to be subjected to the rationing, waiting and other debilitating results of what they evidently believe are the best of intentions.

I know you are against HR 3200. But I fear you may compromise on some important principles as you fight against it. Please hear me out.

Bringing more government involvement into health care "reform" is not a solution. It is a recipe for disaster. Only by reducing government involvement in health care will we get the kind of justice that will bring about the best care for all at the best possible price.

Republicans who hint at "tweaking" the current ideas or "slowing down" their implementation are no better; the premise of government involvement and what the current web of regulations and mandates has already caused is the issue we must all face now to prevent untold and unnecessary suffering down the road. So above all, PLEASE do not be one of the many Republicans willing to compromise principles with those who profit by your abdication of them!

We must remember that health care is not and cannot be free: the skills of doctors, researchers and technology companies must be fairly compensated. The alternative is slavery: of the few taxpayers who will foot the huge bills and of the competent providers of health care goods and services, who will ultimately leave the field in order not to be enslaved by it.

Another area that needs to be understood better is the concept of insurance, which is properly for catastrophe, spreading out the risk of situations that would ruin us financially. The history and cause of the current state of health insurance has root causes that include (surprise!) government taxation laws and regulations. HSAs and high deductible insurance will be the first to disappear if the "reformers" get their way.

People accuse those who speak for me of making up lies about the bill. However, quotes of the actual text reveal the actual results this bill will create. For example, see http://www.classicalideals.com/HealthCareBill8-2009.htm.

As you consider your input on Republican policy, I hope you will avail yourself of some excellent information on the principles needed to fight the current proposals for the best results, go to http://www.WeStandFirm.org. In addition, people like John Mackey of Whole Foods have started to offer real solutions, not just criticisms of HR 3200. These ideas need to be a part of the discussion.

This is not regulation on some dispensable part of our lives. This concerns everyone's survival, to some degree; nobody will be untouched by the outcome of this process. We have a lot to lose.

Thank you, Hannah!

If you agree, please feel free to send it to your own representatives in Washington with a note saying that you agree with it.

Justifying Ted Kennedy's negligent homicide

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

Speaking about the political career of Senator Edward Kennedy and Kennedy's role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, Hufffington Post columnist Melissa Lafsky offered the following:

We don't know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she'd have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don't know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.

Still, ignorance doesn't preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn't automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted's death, and what she'd have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.

Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it.

What we are being asked to swallow is that the victim of negligent homicide would somehow consider their homicide "worth it" because their killer had a prolific political career--a career defined primarily by their support for the forced transfer of wealth from those who earn it to those who do not.

It was a horrific injustice that Kennedy never received more than a slap on the hand for his role in Kopechne's needless and preventable death. It is all the more horrific that Kennedy would now be celebrated for it. But notice Lafsky's claim here: even the most cowardly and despicable acts can be forgiven if altruism is one's aim.

If you ever doubt the wickedness--the outright willingness to justify anything in the name of the self-abnegation that is altruism--remember the life of Ted Kennedy and the moral claims of those who would attempt to lionise him.