The Benjo Blog: One Man's Intellectual Odyssey

Test Post

2005-07-06T01:12:00.000-07:00

This is a test post to latest incarnation of The Benjo Blog; specifically, it links to the Test Post.

Momma If That's Moving Up, Then I'm Moving Out

2005-04-19T02:42:00.000-07:00

My apologies to Billy Joel, those lyrics from the song just popped into my head as I sat down to write this post.

My blog is moving! I've acquired a new blog, powered by the capable and very elegant Wordpress publishing software! You can find my new blog at http://benjoblog.weblogs.us or simply click here.

Lochner v. New York

2005-04-18T09:34:00.000-07:00

Sunday (4/17/2005) was the 90th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Lochner v. New York. The case involved a baker who had broken New York's state law forbidding bakers from working more than 60 hours in a given work week. The Supreme Court struck down the law, on the grounds that it violated the baker's right to liberty and to freely make contracts. Although there are deficiencies in the decision overall, it was a watershed in natural rights jurisprudence. Here are two of the best portions of the decision:

The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the State in the legitimate exercise of its police power.

Liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties to it; the one has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor.

This last quotation from the decision is an excellent defense of judicial review:

It must, of course, be conceded that there is a limit to the valied exercise of the police power by the state. There is no dispute concerning this general proposition. Otherwise the 14th Amendment would have no efficacy and the legislatures of the states would have unbounded power, and it would be enough to say that any piece of legislation was enacted to conserve the morals, the health, or the safety of the people; such legislation would be valid, no matter how absolutely without foundation the claim might be. The claim of the police power would be a mere pretext,- become another and delusive name for the supreme sovereignty of the state to be exercised free from constitutional restraint. This is not contended for. In every case that comes before this court, therefore, where legislation of this character is concerned, and where the protection of the Federal Constitution is sought, the question necessarily arises: Is this a fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty, or to enter into those contracts in relation to labor which may seem to him appropriate or necessary for the support of himself and his family? Of course the liberty of contract relating to labor includes both parties to it. The one has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor.

This is not a question of substituting the judgment of the [198 U.S. 45, 57] court for that of the legislature. If the act be within the power of the state it is valid, although the judgment of the court might be totally opposed to the enactment of such a law. But the question would still remain: Is it within the police power of the state? and that question must be answered by the court.

Law Prof. David Bernstein gives a good summary of how the left and right view the decision:

In Lochner v. New York (1905), the Supreme Court - discovering a right to contract in the Fourteenth Amendment - invalidated a New York statute setting maximum working hours for bakery employees. A century later, Lochner still stands as one of the most widely despised decisions in the Court's entire history. Conservatives denounce it as a prime example of "substantive due process" run wild - judicial invention paving the way for Roe v. Wade and its offspring. With equal fervor, liberals criticize the Lochner Court's perceived attempt to write laissez faire economics into the Constitution.

Timothy Sandefur provides a good defense of Lochner - Why Lochner was rightly decided.

Cox and Forkum - Civil Obedience

2005-04-17T19:25:00.000-07:00

What's Up With China

2005-04-16T00:46:00.000-07:00

Gus Van Horn has done an amazing job of covering the latest developments in China, and their implications for the rest of the world. I don't even bother reading about what's going on over there any longer, because I know Gus will condense the essentials into an easy-to-read format.

As if that weren't enough, he's even gone to the trouble of creating an "index" of all his posts on China; this is where he'll include all future posts on China as well. Definitely a resource you should bookmark! Here's the link: Chinamerica Central. Thanks Gus!

Happy 50th Birthday McDonald's!

2005-04-15T01:07:00.000-07:00

Jeff Jarvis at Buzzmachine has a delightful post on McDonald's 50th birthday: Supersized.

When I was a columnist in San Francisco, I reviewed the opening of a then-fancy new McDonald's on Van Ness -- and I panned it. Ray Kroc [a co-founder of McDonalds] wrote a letter to the editor complaining that I was a "codfish aristocrat." He assumed I was just another burger snob. But I called Mr. Kroc and told him that I had once been caught by a survey going to McDonald's in Chicago five times a week; I was an addict. I believed in his credo of QC and I was saddened by the lack of quality I found in his newest emporium. The tone changed immediately: He knew he was talking with a believer and he said he'd get on the case immediately. He did. The restaurant quickly shaped up.

I too admit to succumbing to a need for McDonald's every now and then - when I was in college, I regularly ate their several times a week.

You can learn more about Ray Kroc and the founding of McDonald's here: The McDonald's History - 1954 to 1955.

Ray Kroc mortgaged his home and invested his entire life savings to become the exclusive distributor of a five-spindled milk shake maker called the Multimixer. Hearing about the McDonald's hamburger stand in California running eight Multimixers at a time, he packed up his car and headed West. It was 1954. He was 52 years old.

Ray Kroc had never seen so many people served so quickly when he pulled up to take a look. Seizing the day, he pitched the idea of opening up several restaurants to the brothers Dick and Mac McDonald, convinced that he could sell eight of his Multimixers to each and every one. "Who could we get to open them for us?" Dick McDonald said."Well," Kroc answered, "what about me?"

Such is the stuff that heroes are made of...

Free Blog - Easy to Start

2005-04-14T23:59:00.000-07:00

If you're already a member of Objectivism Online (and if not, go become one now), you can now create your own blog there through the forum. If you already have a blog, you can also "register" your blog with the forum, thereby giving your blog added exposure to a large community of Objectivists (hat tip: Truth, Justice, and the American Way).

The option to create your blog is in the top left of your control panel (My Controls on top right). Once it has been created, you will find additional options and settings there.

The Greatest Threat to Representative Government?

2005-04-14T15:06:00.000-07:00

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, on the most dangerous threat to representative government: (hat tip: ACS Blog).

As presently constituted, Perkins will point out, the federal judiciary presents a far greater danger to the United States than many other threats facing Americans today. “The court has become increasingly hostile to Christianity, and it poses a greater threat to representative government -- more than anything, more than budget deficits, more than terrorist groups,” he said last week.

This Ought to be Interesting...

2005-04-14T08:55:00.000-07:00

From the Washington Post:

Connecticut's House of Representatives passed legislation Wednesday that would make the state the second to establish civil unions for same-sex couples, and the first to do so without being directed by a court.

The state Senate overwhelmingly approved a civil-unions bill last week, and lawmakers said they expect to endorse the House version as early as next week. Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R) said Wednesday that she will sign it.

Religious conservatives have been crying foul ever since "gay marriage" was made legal in Massachussets last year, on the grounds that "activist" judges had legislated from the bench. Will they be satisfied now when legislation has been passed "democratically"? Of course not, because conservatives are not opposed to tyranny, only to a limitation on their power. That's why they called for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

In the wake of the Terri Schiavo debacle, I don't see any real likelihood of such an amendment passing. I'm cautiously optimistic (with a large emphasis on the caution), but I think the conservatives will treading lightly in the future on any controversial issues.

Filibusters and Defections

2005-04-13T04:16:00.000-07:00

Further evidence that the conservatives' support in the Republican party isn't unanimous (from the AP):

Two groups normally allied with Republicans have bolted from the party's effort to ban judicial filibusters the first major defections from a conservative push to prevent Senate Democrats from blocking President Bush's judicial nominees.

The National Right to Work Committee, a 2.2 million-member group critical of unions, and the Gun Owners of America, with 300,000 members, say they fear eliminating judicial filibusters could eventually lead to doing away with filibusters altogether.

Both groups have benefited in the past from use of the Senate parliamentary tactic to block gun control and labor bills. A filibuster technically is unlimited debate, and requires 60 votes from the 100-member Senate to stop.

I've blogged about the filibuster before (here and here); it's good to see two prominent Republican groups standing up to the conservatives. While I'm not a die-hard supporter of the filibuster as an end in itself, I think it can be a very valuable tool in preventing both disastrous legislation and disastrous judicial nominations. And in today's political environment, it's an excellent means of culling the political process, which in the majority of cases only creates further inroads to a dictatorship.

Anti-Communist Reading List

2005-04-12T00:20:00.000-07:00

Mike Adams has a short piece on Townhall.com: An anti-communist reading list.

Hardly a day goes by without parents asking me for advice on how to protect their children from the harmful secular and socialist influences they will encounter in college. Today, I present a reading list, which should help any high school student understand the reality of socialism long before setting foot on a college campus. It will help abort any professor's attempt to advance his agenda by rewriting socialism's disgraceful history.

I hope you noticed the casual way secular was thrown in along with socialist, as two equivalently evil things. What makes this introduction to the list most interesting, however, is the fact that out of the ten books he recommends, 4 of them are by Ayn Rand (Anthem, We the Living, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged)! I found this a little surprising, only because he appears to be a conservative. Cringing at the prospect of what he would say about each novel, I was actually pleasantly surprised. Here's his take on Atlas, which is a far better review than I ever expected to hear from any conservative:

This is my favorite American novel. It is my second favorite novel behind "The Brothers Karamazov." Based on her other writings, Ayn Rand seems to have considered John Galt's speech to be the highlight of the novel. Francisco d'Anconia's speech at Jim Taggart's wedding was my favorite part of the novel. At over 1000 pages, this one is going to take time for your high schooler to read. If they refuse, you can always teach them a lesson about capitalism by paying them to read it. The results will be well worth the investment.

To paraphrase Betsy Speicher, "You'll know Objectivism is winning when a conservative recommends that parents pay their children to read Atlas Shrugged!"

Cox and Forkum - Penal Injustice

2005-04-10T22:33:00.000-07:00

Jumping on the Bandwagon

2005-04-09T20:30:00.000-07:00

Everybody's posting links to the online version of Hazlitt's classic Economics in One Lesson, so I might as well too. It's definitely an excellent introduction to economics, and one of the "lessons" it highlights throughout is invaluable to studying economics.

I'm referring, of course, to Hazlitt's well known dictum:

From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

- Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson, pg. 17

Google Sightseeing

2005-04-09T20:23:00.000-07:00

Apropos of my previous post on Google Maps, here is a new blog which features pictures of various parts of the world, through the medium of Google Maps: Google Sightseeing: Why Bother Seeing the World for Real?.

The Judicial War on Faith

2005-04-09T01:08:00.000-07:00

Blair at the Secular Foxhole blogged about the new "goon squad" that has formed to take on the judiciary. I serendipitously happened to see their conference on C-SPAN 1 the night before last. If you have access to RealPlayer (free download available), you can find the clip on C-Span's website; it aired 4/7/2005.

I'll have more to say on this later.

Update: The Washington Post published an article on the conference: And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty.

Interestingly enough, among the outrageous comments made throughout the conference, one of the speaker's referenced Stalin of all people. Commenting on Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Edwin Vieira said, "He [Stalin] had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' ".

Perhaps this was just a tongue-in-cheek remark, meant only to be flip, but I doubt it. More likely it is an open confession of the contempt and disdain conservatives hold for a secular society and the rule of law. If they have their way, they will abolish both in short order.

On A Personal Note

2005-04-08T08:21:00.000-07:00

I'm pleased to announce that last week I received my acceptance letter from McGeorge School of Law. I'll begin attending in fall of 2005.

New Blogger Feature

2005-04-07T20:41:00.000-07:00

For those of you who've had problems losing your posts when attempting to publish them, Blogger has added a new feature that will help eliminate this problem in a number of cases: Can I recover a lost post?.

For those of you using a Windows operating system, I'd recommend downloading a program which I've been using for quite some time, w.bloggar. This is an application that runs on your computer, which can publish blog entries to Blogger (and pretty much every other weblog system). It's quite handy, and if for some reason your attempt to publish a post fails, you won't lose what you've typed so far. It also has the ability to save posts to your hard drive, and then open them later to publish them. You can learn more about w.bloggar (and download it) here.

Dilbert

2005-04-07T14:19:00.000-07:00

Some Interesting Links...

2005-04-07T14:04:00.000-07:00

The transcript from the MGM v. Grokster case heard before the Supreme Court is now available. I'll be reading it later tonight, and possibly commenting further.
Wired has an article on Blogger and the host of problems it has had lately (leading some disgruntled users to fantasize about the fabled Bag o' Burning Blogger). I haven't gotten to that point yet, but that's probably because I do a great deal of my blogging in the wee hours of the night, while everyone else is sleeping, and thus avoided most of the problems the article lists.

Horror Quote of the Day

2005-04-07T00:28:00.000-07:00

What it costs to fulfill your mission

To fulfill your mission will require that you abandon your agenda and accept God's agenda for your life. You can't just "tack it on" to all the other things you'd like to do with your life. You must say, like Jesus, "Father,...I want your will, not mine." You yield your rights, expectations, dreams, plans, and ambitions to him. You stop praying selfish prayers like "God bless what I want to do." Instead you pray, "God help me to do what you're blessing!" You hand God a blank sheet with your name signed at the bottom and tell him to fill in the details. The Bible says, "Give yourselves completely to God-every part of you...to be tools in the hands of God, to be used for his good purpose."

- Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, pg. 286

Google Maps

2005-04-06T20:05:00.000-07:00

Google has added a interesting twist to it's Maps service - you can now view the corresponding satellite image of the map. Click here to see the map of Sacramento State University, where I got my BS in Computer Science, and then click here to see the satellite image that corresponds to the map (you may need to increase the zoom-in factor on the satellite image by a factor of two to see the university).

Jason Kottke has an interesting post on this subject, and on the surrounding "buzz":

The ability to view satellite images online has been around for years in the form of Microsoft's Terraserver (and also on a mapping site that I can't locate right now...I swear Mapquest let you switch back and forth between the two views, but I can't find it), so this really isn't anything new. Terraserver lets you zoom in/out, move around the map, and view other versions of the map (they have a topological version), and I know that many of the people who are so excited about Google Maps are familar with it. So why is everyone so excited about it?

Part of it is Google's involvement...they draw a crowd of attention anytime they do anything these days. But it also has a lot to do with someone I wrote about a couple of years ago: it's the user experience, stupid:

Robert Morris from IBM argued last year at Etech 2002 that -- and I'm paraphrasing from memory here -- most significant advances in software are actually advances in user experience, not in technology. Mosaic was not an advancement in technology over TBL's original browser. Blogger is a highly-specialized FTP client. IM is IRC++ (or IRC for Dummies, depending on your POV). The advantages that these applications offered people were user experience-oriented, not technology-oriented.

The satellite feature on Google is no exception. They took something that's been around for years, made it way easier to use (reposition & zoom maps without reloading, pinpoint addresses and routes onto the satellite imagery, toggle between sat and road maps, map size automatically scales to the browser window, etc.), and suddenly this old thing is much more useful and fun to play around with. Ajax is the underlying technology (which isn't new either) for many of the notable Google Maps features, but how Google used it to make a useful user experience is the real story here.

Update: Gus Van Horn seems to have beaten me to posting on this topic. I started this entry at the first commercial for the hit television show Lost, at about 8:05pm, but only finished after the show, about 9:30pm.

Update II: Alex Tabarrok of Marginal Revolution provides directions to his office.

Horror Quote of the Day

2005-04-06T01:49:00.000-07:00

You knew it had to be coming, sooner or later. After this, you'll be begging me for more quotations on ancient Greece (see here and here.)

Real servants make themselves available to serve. Servants don't fill up their time with other pursuits that could limit their availability. They want to be ready to jump into service when called on. Much like a soldier, a servant must always be standing by for duty: "No soldier in active service entangles himself in affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him." If you only serve when it's convenient for you, you're not a real servant. Real servants do what's needed, even when it's inconvenient.

Are you available to God anytime? Can he mess up your plans without you becoming resentful? As a servant, you don't get to pick and choose when or where you will serve. Being a servant means giving up the right to control your schedule and allowing God to interrupt it whenever he needs to.

If you will remind yourself at the start of every day that you are God's servant, interruptions won't frustrate you as much, because your agenda will be whatever God wants to bring into your life. Servants see interruptions as divine appointments for ministry and are happy for the opportunity to practice serving.

- Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, pgs. 258-259

Register with ARI

2005-04-05T08:08:00.000-07:00

Have you signed up as a registered user for the Ayn Rand Institute's website? If not, there's a very good reason why you ought to do so now: they're hosting John Lewis's excellent lecture, "The Failure of the Homeland Defense: The Lessons From History", and registered users get to listen to it for free! All you have to do is submit your first name, last name and e-mail address. What are you waiting for? Go sign up now.

Not My Typical Post...

2005-04-04T02:34:00.000-07:00

but I found the story touching, and thought others might too (via Michelle Malkin).

Eleanor Clift (Contributing Editor to Newsweek) has written a beautiful tribute to her husband, who just died of cancer last week: Dying with Courage.

Sprinkled among the political columns he wrote for the Cleveland Plain Dealer were updates on his medical condition. There was never any self-pity or whining in his reflections. He compared a stage 4 cancer diagnosis with being on the 90th floor of one of the towers of the World Trade Center. “You don’t know whether you can make it out, but you’re sure going to try.” A sports reporter at heart, he said his battle with metastatic kidney cancer had him playing “prevent defense” like his beloved Cleveland Browns. He ended the column asking readers to join him in a chorus of “DEEE-FENSE.”

I admire his honesty in facing the disease, and the determination he demonstrated to live and to fight, and not to yield.

On a Sunday morning in March as his condition worsened and the morphine dose was doubled, he asked me clearly, “What do you want to do this summer?” I said, “Take a trip with you,” and then I went into the kitchen to fix his cream of rice cereal, and fight back tears.

Poignant. I think I've got something to fix in the kitchen now, too...

Good Link for TPDL

2005-04-04T02:14:00.000-07:00

As some of you may know, I'm currently reading the Purpose Driven Life, by Rick Warren. I had planned on posting some horror quotes (and possibly some analysis), but I discovered that someone else beat me to it. The Charlotte Capitalist has written a series of posts, replete with horror quotes, dissecting the book. They are well worth reading: 1 2 3 4 5 6.

Also, be sure to check out his Reason Roundup for some great links!

Update (4/6/2005): The last three sections in the essay have now been completed! (7 8 9)

Update II (4/8/2005): Oops! Apparently there is one more installment: Final

The Insincere Right

2005-04-03T23:57:00.000-07:00

Christopher Hitchens points out a contradiction from those on the religious right:

A few weeks ago, when the Supreme Court ruled against the execution of minors and specified the need to conform to international consensus on this, the Christian Right was outraged at the idea of foreign governments influencing American courts. But Terri Schiavo's parents were in court only moments afterward, instructing their lawyer to ask a judge to consider the church's teaching on purgatory and hell, and the state of the late Ms. Schiavo's soul. The Vatican is actually a foreign government, recognized as such by an exchange of ambassadors. Are we expected to be complacent when its clerical supporters try to short-circuit the U.S. Constitution with pleas of this kind?

South Park Meets The General

2005-04-03T01:59:00.000-08:00

(hat tip: Pharyngula):

Update: My wife doesn't usually make a cameo on my blog, but after seeing my new alter-ego, she felt compelled to do the same.

Design your own South Park character...

Three Interesting Links...

2005-04-02T22:53:00.000-08:00

I'm currently swamped with work, but I just wanted to point out three links I enjoyed reading today:

Noumenal Self points out an interesting fact about the Pope which I hadn't known before: The Pope and Ayn Rand.

Contemporary History provides a link to Alex Epstein's excellent attack upon the "culture of life", and to an op-ed by former Education Secretary Bill Bennet, defending the arbitrary usurpation of power in the Terri Schiavo Law: Exposing the "Culture of Life"

Diana Hsieh provides some additional evidence of the true nature of the "culture of life": The "Culture of Life" as the Worship of Death

Too Little, Too Late

2005-04-02T01:11:00.000-08:00

From Reuters:

Jane Fonda regrets her visit to a North Vietnamese gun site in 1972, the actress and fitness guru said in an interview with CBS television show "60 Minutes" to be aired on Sunday.

The actress defended her trip to Vietnam in 1972, which won her the nickname "Hanoi Jane." But she said her visit to a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun site used to shoot down U.S. pilots was a "betrayal" of the U.S. military.

"The image of Jane Fonda, Barbarella, Henry Fonda's daughter ... sitting on an enemy aircraft gun was a betrayal," she said, calling the act, "The largest lapse of judgment that I can even imagine."

Having apologized to the men whose deaths and torture she aided and sanctioned, she then proceeds to spit on their graves and in their faces:

But she said she did not regret visiting Hanoi, or being photographed with American prisoners of war there.

"There are hundreds of American delegations that had met with the POWs," she said. "Both sides were using the POWs for propaganda. ... It's not something that I will apologize for."

One of the Benefits of Reading My Blog

2005-04-01T22:39:00.000-08:00

For those of you who've been reading this blog, a small token of my appreciation: I currently possess numerous invites to join Google's GMail. If you'd like a chance to sign up, e-mail me at william.tecumseh.sherman@gmail.com, and I'll send one your way.

As a teaser, GMail is now embarking on a new "Infinity + 1" project, the goal of which is to provide virtually unlimited storage for your inbox (mine is currently at 1,894 Mb and counting). And for those who aren't familiar with GMail, this link will provide you with some good background: Getting Started with Gmail.

Congratulations!

2005-03-31T14:17:00.000-08:00

to Gus Van Horn, winner of the Objectivist blogger competition for the first issue of the Undercurrent. Having read his blog extensively, I can attest that he deserves this award!

Congratulations also to everyone involved in the production of the Undercurrent. I just finished reading the first issue over, and I'm very pleased and impressed with the results. Go take a look, it is well worth your time.

Quote of the Day

2005-03-31T02:43:00.000-08:00

It's another day! You know what that means - more ancient Greece!

Ok, but seriously, this quote puts into perspective the attempt by President Bush and the Congress to overrule the courts in the Terri Schiavo case. The Spartans had it way worse; if it seems rather mild at first, keep reading:

The Spartan constitution, which tradition ascribed to an ancient law-giver, Lycurgus, provided for a government preserving the forms of the old Homeric system. Instead of one king, however, there were two, representing separate families of exalted rank. The Spartan sovereigns enjoyed but few powers and those chiefly of a military and priestly character. A second and more authoritative branch of the government was the council, composed of two kings and twenty-eight nobles sixty years of age and over. This body supervised the work of administration, prepared measures for submission to the assembly, and served as the highest court for criminal trials. The third organ of government, the assembly, approved or rejected the proposals of the council and elected all public officials except the kings. But the highest authority under the Spartan constitution was vested in a board of five men known as the ephorate. The ephors virtually were the government. They presided over the council and the assembly, controlled the educational system and the distribution of property, censored the lives of the citizens, and exercised veto power over all legislation. They had power also to determine the fate of new-born infants, to conduct prosecutions before the council, and even to depose the kings if the religious omens appeared unfavorable. The Spartan government was thus very decidedly an oligarchy. In spite of the fact that the ephors were chosen for one-year terms by the assembly, they were indefinitely re-eligible, and their authority was so vast that there was hardly any ramification of the system which they could not control. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the assembly itself was not a democratic body. Not even the whole citizen class, which was a small minority of the total population, was entitled to membership in it, but only those males of full political status who had incomes sufficient to qualify them for enrollment in the heavy infantry.

- Edward McNall Burns, Western Civilizations: Their History and Their Culture, pg. 155-156

If you've all grown tired of these quotes, take heart! I'm starting another project which will preclude this deluge for at least a week or so. Of course, it involves the Purpose Driven Life, so maybe by next week you'll be begging to hear about something remotely related to Aristotle!

I've Been Selfish...

2005-03-31T02:15:00.000-08:00

and indulged myself by reading a forum rather than blogging. Bad General, Bad! Anyways, there is a very well written post on the issue of the Constitutionality of the Terri Schiavo case, and its implications. It's available on the Forum 4 Ayn Rand Fans, and can be read here (hint: it's the first post, by Free Capitalist!).

Also of interest might be my contribution, which you can read here.

Interesting Link on MGM vs. Grokster

2005-03-30T21:47:00.000-08:00

I found this interesting post by Taylor W. Buley on the MGM v. Grokster case. What makes it interesting is that he compares this case to the trial of Hank Rearden, in Atlas Shrugged. In Mr. Buley's view, MGM and the other producers are the Hank Reardens of this case, being exploited and deprived of the benefit of their creation.

While I sympathize with MGM, who is legitimately the victim of an egregious violation of their property rights by some of the users of p2p software, I am not yet convinced that the creators of the software are at fault. The analogy that immediately comes to my mind here is the companies that produce hand guns.

Hand guns have legitimate, and illegitimate uses. The standard of legitimacy is whether the action in question violates individual rights. If a hand gun is used to defend your life from a mugger, this is a valid usage; if it is used to become the mugger, and initiate force against others, this is an illegitimate use. irrespective of the legitimacy of use, the company that produces the hand gun is not responsible for how the gun is used; that responsibility falls upon the individual who uses it. When Brian Nichols gunned down a judge, court stenographer and deputy sheriff, the police did not arrest the makers of the hand gun he used to perpetrate the crime; they arrested Mr. Nichols, who is the responsible individual for the force initiated in this instance.

Similarly, the use that infringes the copyright of MGM and others is an invalid use, which I don't think can be directly attributed to the creators of the software which is used in the infringement. Even if we grant the notion (which I concede probably isn't too far off) that 90% of the use of this software does constitute a violation of copyright, I don't find that sufficient grounds to punish anyone other than the individuals who happen to be violating the copyright.

For those interested in a more detailed (and technical) discussion of this issue, I'd recommend reading the decision issued by the 9th Court of Appeals on this case in 2004; it is available as a PDF document here. Of further interest is the original district court's decision (available in PDF format here) and Grokster's own website.

Please note that this is just my initial response; I want to study the details of this case in more detail before I come to a final conclusion.

At Last! Some Objectivity

2005-03-30T15:37:00.000-08:00

If you're at all like me, one of the most frustrating things in the Terri Schiavo case has been the arbitrary nature of the discussion on her condition. Even many of the doctors I've seen interviewed have been somewhat mealy-mouthed, seemingly afraid to point out the fact that her cortex is mush and there is no chance of recovery.

Well, I'm pleased to post a link to this transcript; it's an interview from Scarborough Country, a news program that leans to the right. The interview is with neurologist Ronald Cranford, one of the doctors who actually examined Terri Schiavo. He might go a little over the top at certain points, but I am willing to forgive his zeal (after all, I share it!). Here's part of the interview which I absolutely loved:

DANIELS: Are you 100 percent correct in your opinion that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state? Do you agree with that?
CRANFORD: I am 105 percent sure she is in a vegetative state. And the autopsy will show severe irreversible brain damage to the higher centers, yes.
DANIELS: Why are you so sure, Doctor?
CRANFORD: Because I examined her. The court-appointed guardian examined her. Four neurologists at the hospital where she was has said she's carried a diagnosis of vegetative state for 12 years. Every neurologist that examined her, except for Dr. [William] Hammesfahr [a neurologist selected by Terri Schiavo's parents], who is a charlatan, has said she is in vegetative state. That's what the court found. Just because you don't like --
[crosstalk]
DANIELS: Doctor, was a CAT scan -- Doctor, your critics would ask you, was a CAT scan used? Was an MRI taken? Were any of these tests taken?
CRANFORD: You don't know the answer to that? The CAT scan was done in 1996, 2002. We spent a lot of time in court showing the irreversible -- you don't have copies of those CAT scans? How can you say that?
The CAT scans are out there, distributed to other people. You have got to look at the facts. The CAT scan is out there. It shows severe atrophy of the brain. The autopsy is going to show severe atrophy of the brain. And you're asking me if a CAT scan was done? How could you possibly be so stupid?

A Return to Secularism

2005-03-30T15:24:00.000-08:00

I've come across two very interesting pieces today, which are worth reading. The first, by Gus Van Horn: Dump the Religious Right. As usual, Gus delivers an insightful and intelligent discussion of the religious right, especially in relation to their contradictory stands on "states rights". If you haven't read his blog yet, I strongly urge you to do so.

The second is an op-ed in today's New York Times by former Sen. John C. Danforth: In the Name of Politics. This piece isn't perfect, but it is one of the better calls I've seen from someone in the "mainstream" to take control of the Republican party back from the religious right.

Quote of the Day

2005-03-30T15:07:00.000-08:00

I am presently (blissfully) suffering from a temporary fit of monomania regarding ancient Greece, so I apologize if this seems a bit much for some of you. My primary motivation for publishing this blog is selfish, however, so I am taking the liberty of posting yet another quote on Greek civilization. I always like to think of these quotations as reports from the library; I read through all the text, and deliver the "choice" portions for those who might be interested.

So, by all means, enjoy! This quote gives a good summary of the context in which ancient Greece flourished:

This, then, was the environment of Greece: civilizations like Egypt, Crete, and Mesopotamia that gave it those elements of technology, science, and art which it would transform into the brightest picture in history; empires like Persia and Carthage that would feel the challenge of Greek commerce, and would unite in a war to crush Greece between them into a harmless vassalage; and, in the north, warlike hordes recklessly breeding, recklessly marching, who would sooner or later pour down over the mountain barriers and do what the Dorians had done - break through what Cicero was to call the Greek border woven on the barbarian robe, and destroy a civilization that they could not understand. Hardly any of these surrounding nations cared for what to the Greeks was the very essence of life - liberty to be, to think, to speak, and to do. Every one of these peoples except the Phoenicians lived under despots, surrendered their souls to superstition, and had small experience of the stimulus of freedom or the life of reason. That was why the Greeks called them all, too indiscriminately, barbaroi, barbarians; a barbarian was a man content to believe without reason and to live without liberty.

- Will Durant, The Life of Greece, pg. 70

Quote of the Day

2005-03-29T02:17:00.000-08:00

The basic Greek ideals:

At the end of the Homeric Age the Greek was already well started along the road of social ideals that he was destined to follow in later centuries. He was an optimist, convinced that life was worth living for its own sake, and he could see no reason for looking forward to death as a glad release. He was an egoist, striving for the fulfillment of self. As a consequence he rejected mortification of the flesh and all forms of denial which would imply the frustration of life. He could see no merit in humility or in turning the other cheek. He was a humanist, who worshiped the finite and the natural rather than the otherworldly or sublime. For this reason he refused to invest his gods with awe-inspiring qualities, or to invent any conception of man as a depraved and sinful creature. Finally, he was devoted to liberty in an even more extreme form than most of his descendants in the classical period were willing to accept.

-Edward McNall Burns, Western Civilizations: Their History & Their Culture, pg. 152

Grokster vs. MGM

2005-03-28T10:21:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in the case of Grokster vs. MGM Studios. The case centers around the use of what is known as peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing software; MGM, et. al., are claiming that p2p software constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Wired has a good article on the coming case: Supreme Showdown for P2P's Future. SCOTUSblog has by far the best post on it I've seen, providing a good introduction to what p2p software is and to other related cases: MGM v. Grokster: Background and Analysis.

I'll blog some more on this later in the week.

Quote of the Day: Celebrating Man

2005-03-28T03:57:00.000-08:00

An oft-repeated truism I hear all the time is that, "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." While this is true, it implies that the importance of history is primarily negative; in this view we ought to study history in order to avoid the mistakes of the past. I think however that there is a much more positive role history can play in anyone's life - namely, discovering what man (and a culture) could be, and ought to be.

Without history, it is true, we wouldn't know fully the terrible damage that religion can wreak upon mankind, or the massive destruction of human life that communism achieved in only 50 years. We wouldn't know that irrationalism in any form, secular or religious, has always led to impoverishment, dictatorship and death.

But we also wouldn't know that the hatred of man that we see emblazoned throughout the culture today in the form of animal rights, environmentalism or the corrupt "pro-life" movement was only an incidental aberration, and not something endemic to the world. Most importantly, we wouldn't know what heights men once knew; we wouldn't know that there was a time when man, not some ineffable all-powerful deity or insignificant animal, was the center of the universe and the highest object of reverence.

Such knowledge is needed, not just to refute those who look everywhere for metaphysical feet of clay, but for one's personal happiness. Knowing that a culture devoted to man's greatness existed is an invaluable aid for maintaining one's motivation in a corrupt culture. And it is immensely satisfying to live vicariously in a world that today is nearly impossible to find, outside of Ayn Rand's works of fiction.

I'm thinking, of course, of ancient Greece, which I consider in many ways to be the pinnacle of human civilization. I know of no other period in history where a culture so closely approximated my ideal world. Here is a brief glimpse into it:

Among all the peoples of the ancient world, the one whose culture most clearly exemplified the spirit of Western man was the Hellenic or Greek. No other of these nations had so strong a devotion to liberty or so firm a belief in the nobility of human achievement. The Greeks glorified man as the most important creature in the universe and refused to submit to the dictation of priests or despots or even to humble themselves before their gods. Their attitude was essentially secular and rationalistic; they exalted the spirit of free inquiry and made knowledge supreme over faith. It was largely for these reasons that they advanced their culture to the highest stage which the ancient world was destined to reach.

- Edward McNall Burns, Western Civilizations: Their History & Their Culture, pg. 147

Free Software List

2005-03-26T17:43:00.000-08:00

David Veksler has amassed an indispensable, categorized list of free software for Windows. If you're like me, the best kind of software is the free kind, especially when it is as good as the kind you have to pay for.

More Thoughts on Terri Schiavo

2005-03-25T02:32:00.000-08:00

Having dominated the television news and the majority of blogs this week, the Terri Schiavo case seems poised to reach its zenith as she grows ever closer to death. There have been a number of great posts on this topic from various bloggers; here are a few that I found original and insightful:

Hiding an Agenda behind Facts (Gus Van Horn)
Religionists Reenact Recount (Gus Van Horn)
Saving Schiavo's Soul (Truth, Justice and the American Way)

Having thought about the issue further, I think there are some positive things to be gleaned from the whole fiasco. The overall positive development is that the "trial balloon" of the religious right appears to be heading in the direction of the Hindenberg. Despite great claims of dispute, polls have consistently shown that the American people have not abandoned the sense of life that makes this country so wonderful. When faced with an open grab for power and a naked appeal to a "life" of misery, they rejected it, in favor of freedom and happiness.

In the first place, every poll I have seen shows enormous disapproval for the federal intervention into the Terri Schiavo case - and even so-called "evangelicals" are roughly split over this issue. In spite of the religious right's attempted coup of America (by "cashing in" on the election), most Americans don't want to live in a theocracy, at least not yet, and certainly not to this extent. We still have time - it isn't too late, there is, in the words of the oft-used cliche, some good left in the country after all. Being as pessimistic as I sometimes am about the state of the world, I personally found this especially heartening.

The other positive, which I rank on nearly the same level, is the majority's rejection of the persistent vegetative state as a tolerable condition. In spite of the religious right's attempt to equate her condition with "life" (in the human sense), many Americans have openly declared that they don't want to be in this debilitated state. They can see perceptually that her condition is anti-value and anti-life, even if they aren't capable of naming the issue intellectually.

What this will bring in the end remains to be seen. What I do see is that we still have a chance to save this country, small though it may be. I won't let it go.

Honorable Mention

2005-03-25T02:04:00.000-08:00

I know this is somewhat late, but I think in light of everything that has transpired, the distinction of being the sole senator to courageously oppose the "emergency" legislation in the Terri Schiavo case, on principled grounds, deserves an honorable mention:

The lone Senate objection, in fact, came from a southern Republican — who quietly inserted his statement into the Congressional Record hours after the measure passed.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,'" Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said, quoting the 10th Amendment. "This is a principle of federalism which, I believe, is not being followed by Congress in enacting this legislation.

Critique of Interventionism

2005-03-24T19:07:00.000-08:00

Ludwig von Mises's book A Critique of Interventionism is now available online or for download as a PDF file, from the Mises Institute.

Cox and Forkum - Here's Looking at You

2005-03-24T18:54:00.000-08:00

Administrative Notes

2005-03-23T09:51:00.000-08:00

I've rewritten my blog's template, from 2-columns to 3-columns. Everything isn't yet flowing 100%; I'm still fixing some of the bugs (an unfortunate consequence of using Cascading Style Sheets [CSS] for style and appearance). Hopefully I will have it all working smoothly by tomorrow morning at the latest.

UPDATE: 3/24/05 1:39 am - Well, I finished tweaking with my blog. Everything appears to be working quite smoothly, with the following exception: due to the inconsistent implementation of the CSS standard by the three major browsers (IE, Netscape/Firefox, and Opera), this blog only appears exactly right in Internet Explorer (preferably version 6.0+).

I had to choose between the three, and since something like 85% or more of my traffic comes via Internet Explorer, I have chosen to cater to the majority. Sorry to all you "rebels" out there; I sympathize, as Firefox is my favorite web browser.

Please let me know if any IE users experience any kind of problems; everything should look and flow quite "fluidly", so if it doesn't I'd like to know, so I can correct the problem. I may make a few more "minor" adjustments, like adding a script to detect what browser the user has, and then trying to taylor the CSS dynamically to fit each individual. We'll see. Hope everyone likes the new look, I know I'm pleased with it.

What, You Mean I Actually Have To Work Now?

2005-03-22T01:14:00.000-08:00

France's imbecilic 35-hour mandatory work week appears ready to join Lenin in the dust bin of history:

With unemployment at 10 percent, politicians of all stripes acknowledge that the country's unique 35-hour law has failed in its original ambition: to force employers to hire massively. What's more, there are strong signs that it hurt living standards as employers froze salaries to make up for lost labor.

"The intention was to spread work around, but the effect was to spread our salaries around," Thierry Breton, France's new finance minister, said last week.

A Good Summary

2005-03-22T00:29:00.000-08:00

Robert Tracinski gives an incomparable summary of the meaning of Congress's legal maneuvers in the Terri Schiavo case:

In its crazed campaign to keep a brain-dead woman alive against the will of her husband, Congress has now passed a law violating the separation of power between the legislative and judiciary and between federal and state governments by arbitrarily altering the jurisdiction of the Terry Schiavo case—and doing so ad hoc, not as part of any general rule affecting all such cases universally.

If leftists did this sort of thing, conservatives would scream (correctly) that this is a step toward dictatorship. Yet the most committed religious conservatives will not hesitate for a moment to wipe out the entire mechanics of a free society in their lust to use government power to impose religious restriction on the individual. Even worse: not a single Senate Democrat was willing to stand up and stop them.

This might seem a little silly...

2005-03-21T20:52:00.000-08:00

but I am quite proud of the following test results:

Billy Idol
You scored 100 lyricpoints!

Billy Idol bows down before you and your God-like knowledge of '80s music. We're not worthy.

My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 99% on lyricpoints

Link: The Kickass '80s Lyrics Test written by alohafromhell on Ok Cupid

I have been a huge 80's fan for years...

Answers to Menger's Principles of Economics (Ch. 1)

2005-03-21T09:13:00.000-08:00

Chapter 1: The General Theory of the Good

Sec. 1 The General Theory of the Good

Why does Menger make the distinction between "useful things" and "goods"? What is an example of something that is a "useful thing" but not a "good"? (pg. 52)

What four prerequisites does Menger list for a thing to "acquire goods-character"? (pg. 52)

If you had an automobile, but no gasoline, would that the automobile still be a good, according to Menger? Why not?

What makes something an imaginary good? List some examples of imaginary goods. (pg. 53)

Sec. 2 The Causal Connections Between Goods

What distinguishes a "good of the first order" from a "good of the second order"? Give some examples of both, and of higher "order" goods.

Are some goods inherently "higher" order than others? Why or why not? Can some goods function at multiple levels in the "causal nexus" of goods? Give an example.

Sec. 3 The Laws Governing Goods-Character

Part A

Menger writes, "it is never in our power to make use of any particular good of higher order for the satisfaction of our needs unless we also have command of the other (complementary) goods of higher order." Why not? (pg. 59)

If one possesses some higher order goods for the production of an automobile, but not all, do the higher order goods necessarily lose their goods-character? If not, why?

Menger writes, "The question of the dependence of the goods-character of goods of higher order than the second upon the availability of complementary
goods is more complex." This would imply that possession of a good of the fifth order, and its complementary goods of the fifth order needed to produce a good of the fourth order, would not by itself establish their goods-character. Why is this so? (pg. 60)

Part B

If a human need disappears, a good of the first order which could only satisfy that need would lose its goods-character; is such a loss necessarily applicable to goods of second, third and nth order? Why or why not?

Sec. 4 Time and Error

What three factors does Menger stress in relation to uncertainty (and the possibility of error) in production?

The ineradicable span of time which accompanies the transformation of higher-order goods into first order goods. This span of time means that the user of higher-order goods must attempt to judge the needs not for *present* first-order goods, but for *future* consumption of first order goods - and this is not a given.

The indefiniteness of higher order goods - the fact that higher-order goods do not always produce an absolute or fixed number of other goods. As Menger himself notes, there is always the possibility of yielding less than expected from production, or even nothing at all.

Non-goods - those elements which affect the production of lower-order goods from higher, which are either unknown to man or out of his control, and which can thus harm or help his production. An instance of this, as was mentioned earlier, is the weather.

Sec. 5 The Causes of Progress In Human Welfare

Why does Menger contrast the division of labor in a primitive collecting economy with the division of labor in a more advanced economy? If both economies are arranged around the division of labor, what explains the superior productive powers of the advanced economy?

Sec. 6 Property

What does Menger mean when he states that, "all the goods an economizing
individual has at his command are mutually interdependent
with respect to their goods-character..."? (pg. 75)

Terri Schiavo

2005-03-20T13:25:00.000-08:00

There's quite a bit of incorrect information floating about on the web and on television regarding the facts of this case, and about Terri Schiavo's medical condition. The following blog, which I found online, does a good job of presenting the facts in an objective way: Abstract Appeal.

My own take, based upon everything I've seen and read, is that Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die.

Questions for Menger's Principles of Economics (Chapter 1)

2005-03-19T06:18:00.000-08:00

One of my long-range goals in life is to gain a solid understanding of economics. Part of that involves reading many of the important works of the great economists. Right now I'm reading Carl Menger's classic Principles of Economics. As a means of solidifying my understanding of Menger's work, I'm developing questions for each chapter of the book (since I couldn't find any on the internet when I looked).

I've just finished the questions for Chapter 1, which I'm posting here. Comments are welcome, especially from any readers who have read the book. I'll be posting my answers to these questions in a couple of days.

Chapter 1: The General Theory of the Good

Sec. 1 The General Theory of the Good

Why does Menger make the distinction between "useful things" and "goods"? What is an example of something that is a "useful thing" but not a "good"? (pg. 52)

What four prerequisites does Menger list for a thing to "acquire goods-character"? (pg. 52)

If you had an automobile, but no gasoline, would that the automobile still be a good, according to Menger? Why not?

What makes something an imaginary good? List some examples of imaginary goods. (pg. 53)

Sec. 2 The Causal Connections Between Goods

What distinguishes a "good of the first order" from a "good of the second order"? Give some examples of both, and of higher "order" goods.

Are some goods inherently "higher" order than others? Why or why not? Can some goods function at multiple levels in the "causal nexus" of goods? Give an example.

Sec. 3 The Laws Governing Goods-Character

Part A

Menger writes, "it is never in our power to make use of any particular good of higher order for the satisfaction of our needs unless we also have command of the other (complementary) goods of higher order." Why not? (pg. 59)

If one possesses some higher order goods for the production of an automobile, but not all, do the higher order goods necessarily lose their good-character? If not, why?

Menger writes, "The question of the dependence of the goods-character of goods of higher order than the second upon the availability of complementary
goods is more complex." This would imply that possession of a good of the fifth order, and its complementary goods of the fifth order needed to produce a good of the fourth order, would not by itself establish their goods-character. Why is this so? (pg. 60)

Part B

If a human need disappears, a good of the first order which could only satisfy that need would lose its goods-character; is such a loss necessarily applicable to goods of second, third and nth order? Why or why not?

Sec. 4 Time and Error

What three factors does Menger stress in relation to uncertainty (and the possibility of error) in production?

Sec. 5 The Causes of Progress In Human Welfare

Why does Menger contrast the division of labor in a primitive collecting economy with the division of labor in a more advanced economy? If both economies are arranged around the division of labor, what explains the superior productive powers of the advanced economy?

Sec. 6 Property

What does Menger mean when he states that, "all the goods an economizing
individual has at his command are mutually interdependent
with respect to their goods-character..."? (pg. 75)

IEAPD Update

2005-03-19T05:16:00.000-08:00

Well, it's Saturday, so that means that IEAPD (or as Gus Van Horn recommended, International Eat an Animal For PETA Week) is nearly over. In true carnivore style, I'm preparing a delectable stew to cook in the crock pot while I slave away at work this morning. Seven hours of cooking, and the delicious meat taken of the ribs ("lifter" meat, as we affectionately call it) will be tender and full of flavor. I can't wait.

Not being a speciest, I opened the menu up beyond cows. I've had some tuna fish sandwiches this week, and salmon fillets for dinner as well. What can I say, I'm an equal-opportunity eater of animals! Note to self: pick up some pork chops when you go shopping tonight :)

Quote of the Day

2005-03-19T00:55:00.000-08:00

Here is a great quote from Carl Menger's outstanding treatise, Principles of Economics, on the division of labor when men are rational.

In its most primitive form, a collecting economy is confined to gathering those goods of lowest order that happen to be offered by nature. Since economizing individuals exert no influence on the production of these goods, their origin is independent of the wishes and needs of men, and hence, so far as they are concerned, accidental. But if men abandon this most primitive form of economy, investigate the ways in which things may be combined in a causal process for the production of consumption goods, take possession of things capable of being so combined, and treat them as goods of higher order, they will obtain consumption goods that are as truly the results of natural processes as the consumption goods of a primitive collecting economy, but the available quantities of these goods will no longer be independent of the wishes and needs of men. Instead, the quantities of consumption goods will be determined by a process that is in the power of men and is regulated by human purposes within the limits set by natural laws. Consumption goods, which before were the product of an accidental concurrence of the circumstances of their origin, become products of human will, within the limits set by natural laws, as soon as men have recognized these circumstances and have achieved control of them. The quantities of consumption goods at human disposal are limited only by the extent of human knowledge of the causal connections between things, and by the extent of human control over these things. Increasing understanding of the causal connections between things and human welfare, and increasing control of the less proximate conditions responsible for human welfare, have led mankind, therefore, from a state of barbarism and the deepest misery to its present stage of civilization and well-being, and have changed vast regions inhabited by a few miserable, excessively poor, men into densely populated civilized countries. Nothing is more certain than that the degree of economic progress of mankind will still, in future epochs, be commensurate with the degree of progress of human knowledge.

Carl Menger, Principles of Economics, pg. 73-74

The Purpose Driven Life

2005-03-17T23:48:00.000-08:00

Many speculated when Brian Nichols murdered a judge, court stenographer, sheriff (all three in the span of a few minutes) and still escaped, that he would not be taken alive. I confess to being party to such speculation. So when he emerged earlier this week alive, in the custody of police, one of the first questions on everyone's mind was: why did he surrender? What made him give up his utter contempt for life and bloodshed?

Ashley Smith, the hostage he had taken, had an answer when she appeared before the press. She told them that, "an excerpt of the book [The Purpose Driven Life] that she read to the suspect, Brian Nichols, during the seven hours he held her hostage was a turning point in ending her captivity..." (Mention of 'Life' book in crisis drives up sales).

The Purpose Driven Life, written by Rick Warren, is already a bestseller. Before having received this latest burst of publicity, the book had already sold in excess of 20 million copies since it was published in 2002. Before Mr. Nichols capture, the book was ranked 54th on Amazon.com; today, it is 2nd, beaten only by the newest book in the Harry Potter series.

The book seeks to answer a question which plagues many people today; as the subtitle of the book asks, "What on earth am I here for?" Unfortunately, the answer the book gives is pernicious, and sabotages the very people who need purpose the most in their lives. The author, an evangelical Christian, dismisses outright the possibility of any this-worldly purpose in man's life. For Mr. Warren, purpose can only come from God, and obeying His purpose is one's most important duty.

Mr. Warren begins his book with a quote (with which he completely agrees) from the philosopher Bertrand Russell: "Unless you assume a God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless." Using that as his springboard, Mr. Warren wastes no time in getting to the heart of his thesis:

It's not about you.
The purpose of your life is far greater than your own personal fulfillment, your peace of mind, or even your own happiness. It's far greater than your family, your career, or even your wildest dreams and ambitions. If you want to know why you were placed on this planet, you must begin with God. You were born by his purpose and for his purpose.
The search for the purpose of life has puzzled people for thousands of years. That's because we typically begin at the wrong starting point-ourselves. We ask self-centered questions like What do I want to be? What should I do with my life? What are my goals, my ambitions, my dreams for my future? But focusing on ourselves will never reveal our life's purpose.

This is the worst kind of advice that someone seeking a purpose could be given. It is not from too much focusing on the self that people are left feeling empty, with lives that seem to have no meaning and never add up to anything. Rather, it is precisely because they never cared about their self in the first place.

A large part of this problem stems from religion, which has worked since the beginning of time to eliminate the possibility of selfishness as a good thing. Sacrifice others to yourself, or yourself to others; be as Judas or as Jesus, for there is nothing in between. Nothing could be a better prescription for creating unhappiness and that dreary feeling of helplessness which those who lack a purpose in their lives experience all too well.

I know, because there was a time when I had no purpose in my life. I went through my life day by day, trying to find whatever meager pleasures I could. But they never amounted to much, and only seemed to temporarily dull the constant agony I experienced, the self-doubt and at times self-loathing. But one day all that changed. And it didn't come from self-abnegation or mindless hedonism (both of which I had tried unsuccessfully). It began, when I first read these words:

In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.

But to win it requires your total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man: for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the Morality of Life and that yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth.

-Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, pg. 1069

That was 9 years ago. Every day since then has been a continuous confirmation of the ecstasy I first experienced when I read those lines. You don't have to give your life up, you don't have to become a slave to a "higher" power than yourself. In fact, doing that won't help you, it will only sedate you further with rationalizations as to why you still aren't happy.

Your purpose isn't to do what anyone else intended for you; it's to find those things which genuinely make you happy and give you fulfillment. It's to discover a life of productive effort and achievement, and the pride which you'll earn from doing so. The moral purpose of your life is to be happy, to enjoy your life. This earth is so full of wonderful things, waiting for you to discover them. What are you waiting for?

If you want to have meaning in your life (or just get it back), if you want to feel that overwhelming joy which is your birthright, you should get a copy of Atlas Shrugged. After that, stop by the Ayn Rand Institute, where you can continue your journey. The road to a purpose driven life is just a mouse-click away - why don't you take it?

Well, It's Official

2005-03-17T14:04:00.000-08:00

I'm an atheist, according to this test:

You scored as atheism. You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul.

Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God.

atheism

83%

Buddhism

33%

Satanism

33%

Judaism

25%

Islam

17%

Paganism

17%

agnosticism

Christianity

Hinduism

Which religion is the right one for you? (new version)
created with QuizFarm.com

Of course, I am somewhat skeptical of the test - had it really been accurate, I would have scored 100% atheist, and everything else 0%.

My Knife and Steel (or, What I Do To Pay the Bills)

2005-03-15T00:55:00.000-08:00

In honor of Meryl Yourish's International Eat an Animal for PETA Day, I thought I would blog about my modest contribution to the day. I probably won't be eating beef or pork on IEAPD, maybe some salmon or meatballs though. But in the real world (as opposed to the Blogosphere) I play a much more pivotal role in this wonderful "holiday".

I am one of the men who makes International Eat an Animal for PETA Day possible. Five (sometimes six!) days a week, I strap on my scabbard with my three knives (6", 8" and 12"), my handy steel (for keeping an "edge" on the blade) and my chain-mesh glove. In the wee hours of the morning, while most of you are starting to shave, I enter a cold room, and begin to work my magic.

Cutting meat today is a very different profession from the old days. In olden times (say, 30 years ago), most stores received the whole carcass of a cow, and had to engage in the age old process of "breaking" the beef. Thankfully, this tough and strenuous job is now parceled out to various companies, and I get to deal with "block-ready" beef (or pork, or lamb); essentially, all I have to do is trim off undesirable tissue, and gracefully cut a presentable steak or roast. Much easier on the body than moving a 150-350 pound carcass.

It isn't the most glamorous line of work, but it is fun. Each piece of meat presents a unique challenge - how to process it, and end up with a beautiful package that I would proudly stamp my name upon. One of the most fulfilling things about this line of work is the pride I take in it, and the compliments I receive from my customers. Many of them buy meat exclusively from the company I work for.

And thus I have a particularly rancorous antipathy for the animal rights crowd, and their most conspicuous member, PETA. I proudly declare my endorsement of this tasty day.

As a culinary expert and overall meat aficionado, my recommendation for the day for steak lovers is a boneless ribeye steak - my personal favorite, tender and full of flavor. For pork lovers, try a nice center cut bone-in loin chop; be sure not to cook it too long, pork can dry out quite easily! And for the truly cruel and savage (i.e., lovers of lamb), lamb chops are always nice, maybe a nice rack of lamb.

Lastly, for those of you with a slight tinge of guilty feelings, forget about it! If you don't buy the steak, someone else will. Trust me, the amount of meat I sell in one day would boggle your mind. At best, you're a drop in the bucket. Besides, they're only animals.

Kelo v. New London Transcript

2005-03-14T08:14:00.000-08:00

The official transcript of the Kelo case is now available (hat tip: SCOTUSblog).

Book Review - Our Oriental Heritage

2005-03-14T01:33:00.000-08:00

Last week I completed volume I of Will Durant's magnum opus, The Story of Civilization. Our Oriental Heritage is really three books combined into one. The first book sets the stage, providing Durant's conception of the origin of civilization, and the characteristics which he then focuses on. Book two is really a prequel to his next work in the series, The Life of Greece; it is a broad survey of the civilizations (from Sumeria to Persia) that preceded ancient Greece. The remaining 60% of the book focuses on India, China and Japan, from ancient times to roughly 1930. This last half of the book is primarily a cursory glance over these civilizations, as the remaining 10 volumes deal exclusively with western civilization. As an aside, it is important to note that this work is not primarily a narrative history of the chronological development of each civilization. Rather it is a thematic history, revealing the major developments and achievements in each civilization.

The primary virtue of the book is the author's ability to highlight the essentials of each civilization, without drudging through endless minutiae. Although he does occasionally slip off onto a tangential issue, he has provided the reader with an indispensable tool for discovering when this has occured. Through the use of a new paragraph formatted with a reduced font, the reader can literally see when the content is of a more technical nature, and move ahead if he doesn't find it of interest.

On a negative note, there are errors to be found in the text, of a philosophic and economic nature. The author has a certain fondness for the regulation of society by the government. He also suffers from occasional bouts of Marxism, as best exemplified by this passage describing the effects of the industrial revolution upon Asia.

Those forces took the form of the Industrial Revolution. A Europe vitalized and rejuvenated by the discovery of mechanical power and its application to ever-multiplying machinery, found itself capable of producing goods more cheaply than any nation or continent that still relied on handicrafts; it was unable to dispose of all these machine products to its own population, because it paid its workers somewhat less than the full value of their labor; it was forced to seek foreign markets for the surplus, and was driven, by imperialist necessity, to conquer the world. Under the compulsions of invention and circumstance the nineteenth century became a world-wide drama of conflict between the old, mature and fatigued civilizations of handicraft Asia, and the young, jejune, and invigorated civilizations of industrial Europe

The interested reader can find an incomparable refutation of Marxism, imperialism and the doctrine of overproduction in George Reisman's magnum opus, Capitalism.

All told this is an accessible book that introduces the intelligent reader to the highlights of the early history of the west and the east.

I've Been Rather Busy Lately...

2005-03-10T22:14:00.000-08:00

which is why I haven't been blogging. The wife, myself and the kids are all sick, so I'm pulling double shifts trying to see that everything gets done. In between working and tending the ill, I've been reading little tidbits here and there; here's some links to some interesting little morsels:

Daniel Pipes has a good piece on why the developments in the middle east should be applauded with some caution: A Neo-Conservative's Caution.

Remember the "dot com" bubble back in 2000? James Grant has an interesting op-ed on that subject, and why rosy predictions for the future may be premature: Five Years Later and Still Floating.

English Genius

2005-03-08T00:45:00.000-08:00

That's my score, anyways. To the Commonly Confused Words Test (hat tip: Noodlefood).

I don't usually boast, but I'd say the results speak for themselves:

English Genius
You scored 86% Beginner, 86% Intermediate, 87% Advanced, and 83% Expert!
You did so extremely well, even I can't find a word to describe your excellence! You have the uncommon intelligence necessary to understand things that most people don't. You have an extensive vocabulary, and you're not afraid to use it properly! Way to go!

My test tracked 4 variables. How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 99% on Beginner

You scored higher than 99% on Intermediate

You scored higher than 99% on Advanced

You scored higher than 99% on Expert

I've always joked to my wife that I have an excellent command of the english language...

The Samurai - Soldiers of Altruism

2005-03-05T05:50:00.000-08:00

They despised all material enterprise and gain, and refused to lend, borrow or count money; they seldom broke a promise, and they risked their lives readily for anyone who appealed to them for just aid. They made a principle of hard and frugal living; they limited themselves to one meal a day, and accustomed themselves to eat any food that came to hand, and to hold it. They bore all suffering silently, and suppressed every display of emotion; their women were taught to rejoice when informed that their husbands had been killed on the battlefield. They recognized no obligation except that of loyalty to their superiors; this was, in their code, a higher law than parental or filial love. It was a common thing for a Samurai to disembowel himself on the death of his lord, in order to serve and protect him in the other world. When the Shogun Iyemitsu was dying in 1651 he reminded his prime minister, Hotto, of this duty of junshi, or "following in death"; Hotto killed himself without a word, and several subordinates imitated him. When the Emperor Mutsuhito went to his ancestors in 1912 General Nogi and his wife committed suicide in loyalty to him. Not even the traditions of Rome's finest soldiers bred greater courage, asceticism and self-control than were demanded by the code of the Samurai.

The final law of Bushido was hara-kiri - suicide by disembowelment. The occasions when this would be expected of a Samurai were almost beyond count, and the practice of it so frequent that little notice was taken of it. If a man of rank had been condemned to death he was allowed, as an expression of the emperor's esteem, to cut through his abdomen from left to right and then down to the pelvis with the small sword which he always carried for this purpose. If he had been defeated in battle, or had been compelled to surrender, he was as like as not to rip open his belly. (Hara-kiri means belly-cutting; it is a vulgar word seldom used by the Japanese, who prefer to call it seppuku.) When, in 1895, Japan yielded to European pressure and abandoned Liaotung, forty military men committed hara-kiri in protest. During the war of 1905 many officers and men in the Japanese navy killed themselves rather than be captured by the Russians. If his superior did something offensive to him, the good Samurai might gash himself to death at his master's gate. The art of seppuku - the precise ritual of ripping - was one of the first items in the education of Samurai youth; and the last tribute of affection that could be paid to a friend was to stand by him and cut off his head as soon as he had carved his paunch. Out of this training, and the traditions bound up with it, has come some part of the Japanese soldier's comparative fearlessness of death.

- Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage, pg. 847-848

The Left is Paving the Road to Theocracy

2005-03-03T02:21:00.000-08:00

Gus Van Horn has a very insightful post at his blog: Dems Get Religion.

I agree with many of the points Gus makes there, and his overall fear of the current "transformation" of the political and cultural landscape. The Democrats do believe that they have to suck up to the religious now - Gus points out several instances that may seem small, but are in fact very disturbing. One instance which I have found especially troubling is the new arguments coming out in the debate over abortion.

The religious right has subtlely made some major changes in the nature of the debate. As I've pointed out before, they have without challenge stipulated that the fetus is a human being, which I have yet to hear challenged by anyone. How defenders of a woman's right to abortion plan to defend the murder of a human being (which is what abortion amounts to on this religious view) is anyone's guess (pragmatically, of course).

The conservatives have taken advantage of the latest shift, the Democrats recent moral "rebirth" (in light of the revelation of "moral values"). Sen. Hillary Clinton led the way, with her attempt to make "peace" with the pro-life movement. "We can all agree that abortion is the last resort, and that reducing the number of abortions is a good thing". Conservatives, being shrewd enough to avoid looking the gift horse in the mouth, have already started taking over this mantra. Taking their leave from Bush's "Faith-Based Iniatives", they are already talking about ways the government can help reduce the number of abortions.

Gus ends his post with great prescience, so great in my estimation that it bears repeating:

The Democrats are going to make all kinds of promises to the religious right, while also taking advantage of the fact that their socialist economic agenda is in fact the more "moral" (read: altruistic) alternative. The Dems can push harder one way or the other, depending. When the Republicans start seeing this, they're going to probably say something like, "Oh yeah! But we're serious." The Democrats, if they have any sense at all, will try to nullify national security as an issue in the next election by stifling their anti-war impulses (and supporters). If they do this, the next election is going to be all about sucking up to the religionists.

If the Dems come to power, they have a choice: (a) live up to their promises to the religionists, alienating their nihilistic base as well as the genuine secularists, or (b) betray the religious right, permanently alienating them and destroying themselves as a viable political party. If not, the Dems are finished unless they do some actual soul-searching the next time around. In any case, it seems that the next big issue in American politics will be whether we make the state the handmaiden of religion or abolish this kind of serfdom altogether. Count me in as an abolitionist.

Count me in as well.

Unfortunately, I fear we are seeing the only "soul-searching" the Democrats are likely to do. The marginalization of secularism and atheism as bizarre, fringe movements (helped by dubious "representatives", who are legion) continues unabated. The ideology of the left is dead - and the Democrats are now helping to unplug the theocratic dike the founders bequeathed to us.

Cox and Forkum - Pain and Suffering

2005-03-03T02:16:00.000-08:00

George Reisman - Kill the Prescription Drug Benefit

2005-03-01T08:05:00.000-08:00

George Reisman's newest op-ed, Kill the Prescription Drug Benefit, is up at the Mises Institute.

The most fundamental and obvious reason that the prescription drug benefit needs to be aborted is that if there is ever to be any hope of reining in the size and intrusiveness of government in the United States, an essential first step is to stop adding new government programs. Just as the first injunction to a physician is “Do no harm,” the first injunction to anyone who values economic freedom must be, “Do not add new government programs.”

Thomas Bowden on Judicial Review

2005-03-01T02:07:00.000-08:00

Thomas Bowden has a good op-ed on the upcoming Supreme Court case on displaying the ten commandments on government property. He has a good understanding of the validity of judicial review, and demolishes the conservatives' typical cry of judicial activism.

My favorite part from the op-ed:

In case after case, the Supreme Court has courageously exercised judicial review. Faced with mandatory prayer sessions in public classrooms, the Court responded with Engel v. Vitale in 1962, holding that such prayers violate the First Amendment. Faced with state laws forbidding abortions, the Court responded with Roe v. Wade in 1973, holding that such bans violate a woman’s right to privacy. And faced with state laws imprisoning homosexuals for pursuing sexual pleasure, the Court responded with Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, holding that such laws violate an individual’s right to liberty.

Conservatives decry such decisions because no rights to prayer-free public education, or abortion, or homosexuality, are expressly listed in the Constitution. But the Constitution cannot be interpreted biblically, as an exhaustive catalog of rules revealed by a superior authority, like a secular Book of Leviticus.

The Oscars

2005-02-28T08:12:00.000-08:00

I watched the Oscars last night, and I have to say I was pleased overall with the results. I wanted Million Dollar Baby to win big, and it did - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress (Hilary Swank) and Best Supporting Actor (Morgan Freeman). It was no surprise when Jamie Foxx won for best actor - this was a given.

Eastwood is one of my favorite directors. I loved Unforgiven, and was impressed with Mystic River.

And now for the surprise confession - I also really liked the Passion of the Christ! I went into it as a sort of duty, to see what all the hype was about. But instead I was deeply moved by this picture, and impressed (as I have been in the past) by Mel Gibson's excellent direction. And while I'm embroiled in controversy, I'll also confess to absolutely loving Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2! These two films are testaments to Tarantino's skill as a director - I truly have admiration for this man after watching these movies.

The Ninth Amendment

2005-02-25T15:41:00.000-08:00

Timothy Sandefur is discussing the ninth amendment, and it's implications for the right to die. He also provides links to ten separate posts of his on the ninth amendment, from his old blog. There are many interesting points in these posts related to the ninth amendment and the founders' views of it, for those with some interest in the subject.

Anne Hathaway on The Fountainhead

2005-02-25T14:59:00.000-08:00

She's a young actress, and if you know her, it's probably from the Princess Diaries movie, or Ella Enchanted. Via Media Empire Project:

It's beautiful. Someone asked me actually recently how I was enjoying it. And I said it's not so much that I'm enjoying it, but I feel like someone took the thoughts of my heart and put it down on the page and I'm discovering it. To say I'm enjoying it is an understatement - I'm really discovering parts of myself in the novel. It's really amazing.

Technical Difficulties...

2005-02-24T04:33:00.000-08:00

It appears that my blog is having trouble rendering in Internet Explorer. I will note that it works fine in FireFox and Opera. But do not despair, I'll have the bug fixed sometime this afternoon. Damn Microsoft!

Update: Fixed it! Should look fine now.

Catholic Ecstasy

2005-02-24T03:36:00.000-08:00

The Pope reminds his flock what Catholicism is really about: 'Precious' Suffering.

More than 20 years ago, after recovering from the pistol shot that almost took his life in front of St. Peter's, John Paul declared that suffering, as such, is one of the most powerful messages in Christianity. "Human suffering evokes compassion," he wrote in 1984, "it also evokes respect, and in its own way it intimidates." In 1994, as age and infirmity began to incapacitate John Paul publicly, he told his followers he had heard God and was about to change the way he led the church. "I must lead her with suffering," he said. "The pope must suffer so that every family and the world should see that there is, I would say, a higher gospel: the gospel of suffering, with which one must prepare the future."

You wouldn't know it today, watching many Catholics (or Christians in general for that matter), but "happiness as the moral purpose of your life" doesn't describe the Christian religion. Of course, as Ayn Rand pointed out, the purpose of the Christian moral code isn't to provide a practical guide to action - it's to instill guilt.

This exaltation of suffering may be difficult for many non-Catholics to understand. (Protestant crosses, typically, do not depict Jesus at all, much less in the death throes shown by Catholic crucifixes.) Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" attempted to convey the power of suffering in a way that was graphic, accessible and not a little sensational. But suffering, scholars point out, is at the very core of the faith; it is the vital link between the human experience and that of Christ as savior. He was a suffering victim who seemed to have been defeated by the earthly powers of his time. But in his moment of apparent weakness and defeat, Christians see him as triumphant, dying for humanity's sins and opening the way to heaven.

"The cross is not just something you hang on the wall," says Father Justo Lacunza-Balda, a missionary and director of the Pontifical Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies. "Christianity is not born in a laboratory or a schoolroom; it's not conceived in an institute of higher learning. It's about suffering, torture, the experience of Christ on the cross." And it is about hope. In Africa, for instance, where the Catholic Church is growing faster than anywhere else in the world, the afflicted pope can be seen as "a living presence of the very essence of Christianity, which is the cross—and resurrection," says Lacunza-Balda. "He's not just an icon, he is the incarnation in his whole life of the message of Christ."

Just To Be Fair

2005-02-24T02:46:00.000-08:00

to President Bush, I'm going to mention this interesting tid bit, via The Panda's Thumb. How this guy got a job in the Bush administration (let alone still has it) is a mystery to me: Intelligent Denials.

When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic."

A Personal Confession...

2005-02-23T03:17:00.000-08:00

for fans of Atlas Shrugged. Warning - spoilers ahead!

One of the most poignant sections of the book for me, personally, is when Rearden comes upon the broken body of the Wet Nurse. I break down into tears every time I read through that section of the book. Here's the part that really gets me:

   The boy's head dropped on Rearden's shoulder, hesitantly, almost as if this were a presumption. Rearden bent down and pressed his lips to the dust-streaked forehead.
   The boy jerked back, raising his head with a shock of incredulous, indignant astonishment. "Do you know what you did?" he whispered, as if unable to believe that it was meant for him.
   "Put your head down," said Rearden, "and I'll do it again."
   The boy's head dropped and Rearden kissed his forehead; it was like a father's recognition granted to a son's battle.
   The boy lay still, his face hidden, his hands clutching Rearden's shoulders. Then, with no hint of sound, with only the sudden beat of faint, spaced, rhythmic shudders to show it, Rearden knew that the boy was crying - crying in surrender, in admission of all the things which he could not put into the words he had never found.

Of course, to get the full effect, you really need to read the preceding pages. In my hardcover edition, that starts on page 989 (Part III, Ch VI, The Concerto of Deliverance). Grab some tissues and dig in.

Who Likes Bush (part two)...

2005-02-23T02:57:00.000-08:00

If my last post didn't do the trick, here's another gem:

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush said. "And having said that, all options are on the table."

Conservatives and CPAC...

2005-02-23T02:38:00.000-08:00

Ryan Sager has an interesting piece on Tech Central Station about the Conservative Political Action Conference (hat tip: Instapundit). He notes the nauseating presence of religious conservativism throughout the entire conference, and makes a very insightful conclusion:

...if there was anything particularly striking about this year's CPAC, it is to just what extent Republicans have given up being the party of small government and individual liberty.

Make absolutely no mistake about it: This party, among its most hard-core supporters, is not about freedom anymore. It is about foisting its members' version of morality and economic intervention on the country. It is, in other words, the mirror image of its hated enemy.

Hallelujah! It's nice to see someone other than myself horrified and alarmed by the religious right. Many people I respect have made light of the religious right's increasing presence by noting the many "moderates" in the party. "Yes, it's bad," they'll admit, "but you're making too much of it." During the RNC, the retort was Schwartzenneger, Giuliani and McCain. At the CPAC, the retort has been Log Cabin Republicans and libertarians.

But this is not a convincing response. These groups are present, but they don't have any clout, and are only brought in when their positions matches the position of the religious right. If the topic is abortion, homosexuality or separation of church and state, you will not find the moderates on the list of speakers. They are a deceptive presence, because they give the impression that the core of the Republican party is not religious and theocratic. This is what suckers in those moderates who, rightly reject the left, but are equally horrified by social conservatism.

Reisman on Social Security...

2005-02-21T10:52:00.000-08:00

Economist George Reisman weighs in on President Bush's proposal for social security, and finds it deficient. He offers an intriguing proposal that would be of benefit to soon-to-be retirees, and the young: Social Security Reform: A Free-Market Alternative.

Update: Thanks to my "ghost editor" for noticing my misspelling, which I've now corrected!

Which SciFi Character Are You?

2005-02-20T15:54:00.000-08:00

Here's a link for SciFi fans, to determine which SciFi character you are. I'm pleased with the results:

Jean-Luc Picard

An accomplished diplomat who can virtually do no wrong, you sometimes know it is best to rely on the council of others while holding the reins.
There are some words which I have known since I was a schoolboy. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." These words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie -- as a wisdom, and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

Writing Competition

2005-02-20T15:41:00.000-08:00

I received the following invitation via email to compete in an Objectivist writing competition:

Dear Objectivist blogger,

As you may or may not have already heard, a group of dedicated Objectivist
students is collaborating on a new project to start a national campus
Objectivist newsletter. The publication will be targeted largely toward
honest, receptive college students not familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy.
The founders of this newsletter, currently proceeding under the working title
_The Undercurrent_, view this as a sorely needed and enormously valuable
project in spreading Ayn Rand's ideas. Our articles will apply Objectivist
philosophy to specific issues, spanning not only politics but also cultural
and aesthetic topics of interest to our readers. Given the critical state of
today’s culture, engulfed as it has become by the relativist-left/religious-
right dichotomy, we want to emphasize the connection between reason and values
on as wide a scale as possible.

We currently have a knowledgeable and enthusiastic staff on board for the
project, including a number of past and current OAC students and campus club
leaders. Work on our first issue is well underway. What we need most now are
excellent writers with a thorough background in Objectivism, and an ability to
apply Ayn Rand's ideas to specific issues in a fresh, layman-friendly,
inductive way.

That is where you, the dedicated Objectivist blogger, come in. As part of our
initiative to recruit highly competent writers, we are launching a Blogger
Contest to solicit one of the most crucial articles for our first issue. Your
prize will be, not only free publicity, but the honor of getting published in
a promising new Objectivist campus newsletter.

Your assignment is as follows: Write an op-ed style piece, approximately 700-
1000 words in length, of the sort we affectionately refer to as a "suck-in-the-
right-and-spit-them-out" article.

In other words, attack a position--either political or cultural--held by the
left (such as political correctness, or social security, or federally funded
abortions, etc.), thus attracting the right; then identify the fundamental
error behind the position (such as altruism, statism, etc.), which the left
and the right ultimately share in common (e.g., both advocate limiting our
freedom--the left, by using federal tax money for abortions, the right by
denying a woman's right to *have* abortions); thus revealing that our position
is fundamentally opposed to both camps. When necessary, articles should show
evidence of thorough factual research.

The deadline for submissions is February 28th, giving you a little over a
week. Should you need extra time, please let us know as soon as possible, and
we will try to accommodate. Our main goal is to encourage you to contribute--
so please let nothing stand in your way!

Please e-mail all submissions to this address (eugenia.gorlin@tufts.edu) as
Word document attachments.

Whether or not your submission is published, you may, of course, post it to
your blog. Finally, whether or not you submit an entry, we would highly
appreciate your posting an announcement about the contest and the newsletter
project, including our ongoing search for quality contributors. (If you wish,
you may quote the message in this e-mail verbatim.) This will ensure that word
gets out, and that we get first-rate submissions for our critical first issue.

We hope this will be the first in a series of such contests--but that will
depend largely on the active participation of our contributors.

Thank you, and we look forward to reading your entries!

Best,

_The Undercurrent_ staff

After peeking around the internet, I found the following article on the club in question. Hopefully I'll have time to write an entry for submission; if so, I'll post it here.

Update: The Undercurrent is not being sponsored by the club I linked to above. Here is the clarification, which I received via email:

the project is being launched by a group of past and current OAC
students and club leaders from around the country (including University of
Illinois, UChicago, and other places). We intend for this newsletter to be an
ongoing national project that outlives the often fleeting campus clubs that
sprout up around the country and die when its active members graduate. Though
campus clubs will play a central role as distributors and local sponsors, _The
Undercurrent_ as such is not affiliated with any particular club.

My apologies to Gena and the staff for my misunderstanding.

Blogging Personality Test

2005-02-20T14:56:00.000-08:00

Ego posted a link to this quiz, which will tells you what "type" of blogger you are. Here's the results:

You Are a Pundit Blogger!

Your blog is smart, insightful, and always a quality read.
Truly appreciated by many, surpassed by only a few.

What kind of blogger are you?

Bill Maher

2005-02-18T21:02:00.000-08:00

Bill Maher was on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on Tuesday. Here's a link to the transcript. While I take issue with many of Maher's liberal positions, he is quite funny, and his attacks on religion are second to none. Here's some choice segments:

SCARBOROUGH: So, anyway, let‘s talk about something that Gary Wills wrote. And I think Maureen Dowd echoed with sentiment.

After the election when we found out that 22 percent of Americans, based on some exit polls, said morality was their top issue, Gary Wills said that any country with evangelicals that voted for George Bush who believe in the virgin birth more than they believe in evolution can‘t be an enlightened nation.

And Gary Wills basically compared America to al Qaeda. That‘s a little harsh, isn‘t it?

MAHER: That is too harsh.

SCARBOROUGH: People of faith can step forward, get involved in the process, believe in Jesus, and still vote for George Bush without being an ignorant peasant, can‘t they?

MAHER: Well, I think comparing them to al Qaeda is too harsh, but that‘s because al Qaeda is a terrorist organization.

But do we have more in common—and I am not the first one to say this. I have read this many times. We have more in common with the people, some of the nations who we are aligned against, when you look at beliefs in such things as, do you go to heaven, is there a devil, we have more in common with Turkey and Iran and Syria than we do with European nations and Canada and nations that, yes, I would consider more enlightened than us.

Yes, we are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder. If you look at it logically, it‘s something that was drilled into your head when you were a small child. It certainly was drilled into mine at that age. And you really can‘t be responsible when you are a kid for what adults put into your head.

But when you become an adult, you can then have it drilled out. And you should.

Amen! Of course, I don't consider Europe or Canada to be "enlightened" nations.

SCARBOROUGH: So, I believe in Jesus. I believe in heaven. I believe in hell. I believe in good.

MAHER: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: I believe in evil.

Tell me how that neurological—and I am talking about myself. How does that neurological disorder impact me day in and day out? Because some people would argue it actually makes me healthier, makes me a better member of society, makes sure that I respect other people‘s opinions.

MAHER: Are you kidding? Respect other people‘s opinions?

SCARBOROUGH: Yes.

MAHER: Would we be having this debate about whether gay people can lead their lives just like any other people if it wasn‘t for religion? Religion makes people not respect other people‘s lives.

Maher does a good job in this next segment of stepping out of the trap that Scarborough attempts to set for him, equating atheism with Hitler and Nazism:

SCARBOROUGH: I mean, come on. I mean, you look at all of these states. You can look at Missouri. Like, they had a vote on a referendum on gay marriage. My gosh, what, 70 -- I think 70, 75 percent of the people in Missouri voted against gay marriage. That wasn‘t because 75 percent of the people in Missouri are evangelicals.

What about the people that beat Matthew Shepherd to death in Wyoming? You think they were worshipping Jesus before they went out and beat him to death?

MAHER: Well, no, but why are you conflating those two things? It‘s one thing to beat someone to death. That‘s just a crime.

SCARBOROUGH: Because they‘re gay. No, no, it was hatred of him because he was gay.

(CROSSTALK)

MAHER: I understand that.

But, first of all, I think the vote in Missouri and a lot of other states is because people are religious. They don‘t have to be evangelical, but they‘re religious. They believe in religion, which as—I think it was Jesse Ventura who had that quote about religion is a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.

SCARBOROUGH: Yes. I think Hitler also said that.

MAHER: No, not—well, Jesse...

SCARBOROUGH: No. Hitler said something—I remember when I heard Jesse Ventura saying that, I said, God, that sounds an awful lot like Adolf Hitler, doesn‘t it?

MAHER: Well, you know, even a broken watch is right twice a day.

SCARBOROUGH: OK.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: So Hitler was right.

(LAUGHTER)

MAHER: The point is, well, even Ted Kaczynski was right about a couple of things. It doesn‘t mean I agree that he should be blowing things up. Tim McVeigh had some good points. It doesn‘t mean I agree with his method of putting those points across.

But when people say to me, you hate America, I don‘t hate America. I love America. I am just embarrassed that it has been taken over by people like evangelicals, by people who do not believe in science and rationality. It is the 21st century. And I will tell you, my friend. The future does not belong to the evangelicals. The future does not belong to religion. And I know that...

I share all too well in Maher's embarassment. Unfortunately, I don't think things will change rapidly enough to prevent the future from belonging to religion. The secular left is intellectually and culturally bankrupt, and the conservatives are rushing through the gates...

One More Reason Not to Move to Arkansas

2005-02-18T20:18:00.000-08:00

From the AP:

The state House on Friday voted against affirming the separation of church and state in a resolution brought by a legislator who said he was fed up with a religious undertone at the Capitol.

The House voted 44-39 against the proposal. Only two Republicans voted for it, and one of them, Rep. Jim Medley, said he had intended to vote no but didn't get to his machine in time to change his vote.

Democratic Rep. Buddy Blair said he offered the measure because he was tired of conservative colleagues "making every issue into a religious issue."

"It's unbelievable to me. They have just voted against the U.S. Constitution and the constitution of the state of Arkansas," Blair said.

Legislators have offered bills this session to keep gay people from adopting or serving as foster parents; define marriage in school textbooks as a one-man, one-woman union; require minors to get a parent's permission before an abortion; and offer "In God We Trust" license plates.

Republican Rep. Michael Lamoureux said Blair's resolution wasn't needed.

"It's clear that our founding fathers, that they wanted Christian beliefs," Lamoureux said. "The separation of church and state is not in our Constitution."

Who Likes Bush?

2005-02-18T19:54:00.000-08:00

I've really begun to wonder lately - who could possibly approve of President Bush? "Diplomacy" has failed miserably with North Korea - Kim Jong Il has withdrawn from the vaunted "six-party" talks, declaring that he now possesses nuclear weapons. Iraq is looking grim, with Shiites vaguely supporting a regime based on Islamic law and Kurds demanding virtual independence from the country. And now, Bush tops all his previous blunders, by proving that he can be wrong on just about every issue. From the AP today, Bush let's us know exactly where he stands on Iran:

"I hear all these rumors about military attacks, and it's just not the truth," said Bush, who leaves Sunday for Europe to mend fences with allies. "We want diplomacy to work."

Let's see - maybe my memory's getting rusty, but I think I just mentioned that diplomacy allowed North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. What in the hell does Bush think will make things work differently this time? To be fair, he did leave a carrot on a stick for his supporters, so that they'd have a "leg" to stand on when defending him:

Listen, first of all, you never want a president to say 'never.' But military action is certainly not — it's never the president's first choice. Diplomacy is always the president's first — at least my first choice.

And if you're looking for insightful, clever one-liner's that really show the measure of a man, Bush provides those as well:

Asked if he trusted Iran, Bush said, "Well, it's hard to trust a regime that doesn't trust their own people."

I can see the deadpan smile that must have accompanied that comment. And last but not least, here's Bush on Putin:

Bush said he would talk with Russian President Vladimir Putin about actions widely viewed as a retreat from democracy. "I mean, he's done some things that (have) concerned people," Bush said. But Bush also emphasized that he has "a good relationship" with Putin and would talk with him "in a friendly way" about Western values based on the rule of law, openness, freedom of expression and checks and balances in government.

"We don't need a fresh start in my personal relationship with Vladimir Putin," Bush said. "We're friends. And that's important."

Bush said Putin "sees clearly the common enemy" in the war on terrorism and "he knows you got to be tough and resolute and strong."

I'm sorry, but this President is a farce. These next four years are looking quite dismal. On all the issues where Bush needs prodding, his party smiles and let's him go on his merry way; and on one of the few issues where I sympathize with him, Social Security, the Republicans appear to be preparing to abort (albeit during the first trimester). I still believe Kerry would have been a superior President, given our current situation. The Republican majority would be giving Kerry hell right now for his actions, instead of giving Bush a free pass. And to be quite frank, I don't see how Bush is doing anything now that differs fundamentally from what Kerry would have done. The only difference is that Kerry in all his nudity would have been denounced, while Bush continues to receive praise for his fashion chic.

P.S. I almost forgot to mention Syria:

The president also said that he and his French counterpart, Jacques Chirac, should set their differences aside to focus on the Middle East, Lebanon and other issues. Bush said he and Chirac would send a clear signal to Syria that it must remove its soldiers from Lebanon and that "we're very serious about this."

P.P.S. To be totally objective, I should give Bush some marginal credit for signing the bill curbing class-action lawsuits. Let's see.... -99 + 3 = ...

Quote of the Day

2005-02-17T11:41:00.000-08:00

What is called moral legislation must inevitably increase the alleged evil. The only way to prevent prostitution altogether would be to imprison one half of the human race; aside from this, the law can take a share of the prostitute's earnings, with a fine, and thus induce her to earn more and to pay for "protection." The drug traffic is made profitable by prohibition, and thus increased. The acts forbidden are those by which persons injure only themselves; hence, the law can only injure them further.

- Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine, pg. 93

Let's Get Ready to Rumble!

2005-02-17T02:25:00.000-08:00

Microsoft chairman Bill Gates has recently revealed that Microsoft would be beta-testing a new version of its web browser, Internet Explorer this summer. The following story off of TechWeb covers some of the details:

In announcing that the company would begin beta testing IE 7.0 in early summer, Microsoft chairman and chief software architect Bill Gates (news - web sites) told attendees at the RSA Conference in San Francisco Tuesday that the upgrade would include additional defenses against phishing scams, worms, viruses and spyware, but did not give any details on new capabilities.

Security concerns have been a major impetus for consumers to switch from IE to alternative browsers, with the Mozilla Foundation's open-source Firefox benefiting the most. As of January, IE market share had fallen to 92.7 percent, while Firefox's share had risen to 4.8 percent, according to JupiterResearch, a division of Jupitermedia Corp. Other browsers, such as Netscape and Opera, accounted for the rest.

But JupiterResearch analyst Joe Wilcox believes Microsoft is also concerned with reports that rivals Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news) may be preparing to launch their own branded browsers. Ask Jeeves Inc., a smaller competitor in the search-engine market, has said it is in discussions with Mozilla about launching its own browser based on open-source Firefox.

As someone who both uses FireFox and prefers it to Internet Explorer, I can only say, "Hooray!" The up-coming "browser-war" that article mentions (and somewhat bemoans), will only benefit consumers. One of the reasons I really appreciate the "open-source" movement in precisely their ability to challenge commercial entities to continually innovate, in areas that they otherwise might not. This is no exception. Internet Explorer is way overdue for a rehaul and retooling. Mozilla, and it's more elegant FireFox browsers employ many cutting edge technologies that have, to put it simply, invalidated Internet Explorer (not to mention the continuous vulnerabilities it has suffered from). Hell, I've even gotten my 85 year old grandfather, who certainly doesn't know very much about computers, to switch to FireFox.

If Microsoft can bring out a browser that would supplant FireFox, I will switch, without hesistation. But for now, FireFox is my browser of choice. Competition on a free market is opposite of the competition of the jungle. As consumers, we all benefit, regardless of who produces the best product. What FireFox proves is not that Microsoft is an unconquerable, monolithic giant with "monopoly" power. It proves that quality is what ultimately wins in the marketplace, when people are free to compete with one another.

Perhaps Some Optimism is Warranted...

2005-02-17T01:59:00.000-08:00

I've been a frequent skeptic of any progress towards a semi-free country in Iraq, but the following report from the AFP has made me reconsider (but only slightly):

Kurds have rejected the idea of an Islamic republic in Iraq following the victory of a conservative Shiite list in last month's historic elections.

"Kurds will oppose setting up an Islamic republic if this question is asked by other political forces in Iraq," Adnan Mufti, a senior member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan headed by Jalal Talabani, said Wednesday.

"Of course we are a Muslim people and we must respect our Muslim identity but we cannot pit religion against democracy," said Mufti, himself a candidate for speaker of the autonomous Kuridsh parliament.

Sami Shursh, the unofficial minister of culture within the other heavyweight Kurdish party, Massud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party, agrees.

"What Kurds want is a republican regime founded on the principle of rotation of power, with a parliamentary system, a separation of powers and a separation of religion and the state," he said Wednesday.

While mere appeals alone are not sufficient to provide freedom in Iraq, the ideas mentioned here are much better than I had hoped for. Also, the Kurds are predominantly members of the Sunni sect of Islam, putting them in opposition to the Shiite majority (just imagine if the Protestants had to fight the Catholics for power; it wouldn't be ideal, but better than all Catholics or all Protestants).

For those who have heralded Bush's work in the Middle East (which isn't even worthy of a subdued, "Yay"), the real test will be how Bush acts in the coming days. If the Shiites attempt to enforce their version of Islam, and the Kurds resist, Bush will prove his true stance on freedom by whether or not he backs the Kurds (especially since both Turkey and Iran would like nothing better than for the Kurds to be put in their "place"). His father failed to do so; we'll see if the apple isn't as rotten as the tree which it dropped from.

Of course, this is really wishful thinking. Most likely some form of theocracy is going to take hold, it's really only a question of time, and degree. But you can't say I didn't hope otherwise, at least for a few minutes.

Don't Judge a Book by its Cover...

2005-02-17T01:46:00.000-08:00

When I first heard that a movie about sex researcher Alfred Kinsey was being released, I shrugged. I hadn't heard much about the man, but what I had heard indicated he was something of a hedonist and a pervert. And so naturally I had no interest in seeing the movie, even when it is released for rental. However, I will probably rent it now.

I was reading the blog Ego, one of my regulars; the post in question was Abortion is pro-life, a position I've agreed with for several years. So I proceeded to read through the post, and came across a link to another site I sometimes frequent, Box Office Mojo, which provides quality reviews of movies. The link in question was to the movie Kinsey.

Now, several questions popped into my head simultaneously. What does Kinsey have to do with abortion? Why would Ego link to a review of this movie, which I thought (without good reason) was probably garbage. So, curious, I followed the link, and I must say that the review has convinced me to at least see the movie. The gist of the review is that, whatever his flaws, Kinsey should be remembered for his courage in fighting against puritanical Christianity's dogma that sex is sinful and is not worthy of any form of study. That is a theme that rings true for me, and a context in which I can appreciate the man's work.

Go read the review for yourself, and make an informed decision before you decide to pass this movie by:
Considering Kinsey: Let's Think About Sex

Indecent Proposal

2005-02-16T13:17:00.000-08:00

The House of Representatives has just passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005.

Chafing over racy broadcasts like Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday authorizing unprecedented fines for indecency.

Rejecting criticism the penalties will stifle free speech and homogenize radio and TV broadcasts, bill supporters said stiff fines were needed to give deep-pocketed broadcasters more incentive to clean up their programs and to help assure parents that their children won't be exposed to inappropriate material.

The measure, which passed 389-38, boosts the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer.

Jeff Jarvis provides a breakdown of those who supported the first amendment.

The Right of Return...

2005-02-14T12:37:00.000-08:00

I had always thought this particular idiocy was limited to the Palestinians, but apparently many of the Kurds have embraced it as well. Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, is one of the contenders for the Iraqi presidency:

A more immediate Kurdish concern are areas under the central government's control that Kurds want included within the boundary of a future federal zone, including the multiethnic city of Kirkuk.

Kurdish families displaced during Saddam's "Arabization" program must be allowed to return, and Arab families who replaced them must be sent back, Talabani said. The former dictator deported thousands of Kurdish residents in order to change the demography of the oil-rich city. "They must go back home, all of them," Talabani said.

Defending Academic Freedom

2005-02-14T12:04:00.000-08:00

Onkar Ghate explains why both sides in the Ward Churchill "scandal" are in the wrong: Professor Ward Churchill, The First Amendment and Free Speech on Campus.

Money quote:

Freedom of speech is an individual’s right to express ideas without coercive interference from the government. Free speech does protect an individual who voices unpopular ideas from governmental force, but it does not require that other citizens support him. If an individual wants others to finance the expression of his ideas, he must seek their voluntary agreement. To force another person to support ideas he opposes violates his freedom of speech.

A journalist, for instance, has the freedom to write what he pleases, but he has no right to demand that Time magazine publish it. That decision belongs to the owners of Time. Similarly, a professor has the freedom to teach any view he wishes, but he has no right to demand that Harvard employ him. That decision belongs to the private owners of Harvard. Freedom of speech is not the right of a Ph.D. to have other citizens provide him with a university classroom.

Quote of the Day

2005-02-13T22:37:00.000-08:00

ALL THINGS ARE SUBJECT to the law of cause and effect. This great principle knows no exception, and we would search in vain in the realm of experience for an example to the contrary.

- Carl Menger, Principles of Economics

You can find that quote and the rest of the book here. I'm almost finished with first chapter, and I'm loving it. Here's a quote from a student of Menger's. Makes me wish I could have attended just one of his lectures:

Professor Menger carries his fifty-three years lightly enough. In lecturing he rarely uses his notes except to verify a quotation or a date. His ideas seem to come to him as he speaks and are expressed in language so clear and simple, and emphasised with gestures so appropriate, that it is a pleasure to follow him. The student feels that he is being led instead of driven, and when a conclusion is reached it comes into his mind not as something from without, but as the obvious consequence of his own mental process. It is said that those who attend Professor Menger’s lectures regularly need no other preparation for their final examination in political economy, and I can readily believe it. I have seldom, if ever, heard a lecturer who possessed the same talent for combining clearness and simplicity of statement with philosophical breadth of view. His lectures are seldom ‘over the heads’ of his dullest students, and yet always contain instruction for the brightest.

Back to Blogger's Commenting System

2005-02-13T22:24:00.000-08:00

Wouldn't it figure, shortly after I go to all the trouble to change my commenting system so everyone can post comments, Blogger wises up and adds that feature to its commenting system. So now I am switching back - HaloScan was great, but it has two inherent limitations that make it too cumbersome now:

Comments are archived after like 4 months (you can pay to make them availableb, and
The number of characters a commenter can type is limited to 1000-3000 (depending on if you pay).That might seem like a silly reason for me, since few people comment on my blog. But I can always hope :-).

So now, people can comment who don't have a blogger profile, without limits to the length of their comments. Go to it!

Oh, So That's What We Learned From 9/11...

2005-02-13T21:58:00.000-08:00

Charles Krauthammer gives the conservative justification for the "war on terror":

After 9/11, we finally understood that helping build decent, representative, tolerant societies in the Middle East is ultimately the only way to prevent endless generations of young Arab men from finding fulfillment by crashing airplanes into buildings filled with infidels.

The Notebook - a Recommendation

2005-02-13T01:22:00.000-08:00

About five years ago, my wife and I read Nicholas Sparks's book The Notebook. We both instantly fell in love with the passionate, romantic characters of Noah and Allie, and their deep, enduring love for one another. What made the book so thoroughly enjoyable was its celebration of romantic love, as a selfish value, and the admirable choices the characters make in the face of extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

And so after having received several good reviews from people I respect, I was salivating over my copy of the movie version as I slid the DVD into my DVD player. Gone were the admirable characters, making heroic choices while pursuing their values. In there place were two teenagers, with superficial similarities but obviously edited, watered-down into conventional types you could meet at any bar.

The outrage and betrayal we both felt were visceral, and nearly incommunicable. This book holds a special place in our hearts, and the movie betrayed the essence of the book. Beautiful, romantic scenes and lines were totally excised, without any justification. And totally irrational, disconnected, confusing and unnecessary ones pasted in. We both got the feeling that the screenwriter or director, upon reading the book, felt, "This is too far-fetched, this isn't how real people act, let's make it more palatable to the general public". What they overlook is the fact that "the public", like ourselves, yearns for the kind of the love the book celebrates.

So this is a warning - if you have read the book, DO NOT SEE THE MOVIE. For everyone else, don't even see the movie either- buy the book instead. It's only about 200 pages, but I promise you it will be 200 pages of love and romance like you have rarely seen. If you value passionate, romantic love, this book is for you.

Interesting Tribute to Ayn Rand

2005-02-12T00:40:00.000-08:00

I was surprised to find the following tribute to Ayn Rand in honor of her centennial, on FrontPage Magazine of all places. It's by no means perfect. But on the whole I was impressed with the amount of praise and credit it gives her - at the beginning it refers to her as "the greatest female thinker in history".

Democracy in Iraq

2005-02-09T22:18:00.000-08:00

Many people have been expressing their hopes for the results of the Iraqi elections, and counseling patience before succumbing to pessimism. Some have pointed out that the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, the leading Shiite cleric in the world, has openly called for a "quietist" role for Islamic clerics, whereby they would have no direct role in politics. Given that he is the spiritual equivalent of the Pope to most Shiites, this would seem to be a positive development, one foretelling possible progress for Iraq.

Although al-Sistani's "quietist" philosophy sounds promising (especially considering that he was a contemporary of Ayatollah Khomeini, the theocratic leader of the Iranian Islamic revolution), I think such optimism is misplaced. I just finished reading an interesting article in Newsweek on al-Sistani, What Sistani Wants. On the whole the article is pessimistic, though not as much as I am. One paragraph in particular caught my eye, though the reporters seem to have missed its significance(emphasis added):

Sistani will take no part in deciding exactly who will make up the government, Shahristani says. "He refuses even to meet with the alliance now," Shahristani says. "He says, 'You were elected, so it's up to you now. Don't drag me into it'." But he has set down some guidelines that will have to be followed. "He rejects any role for the clerics in the governance or administration of the country," says Shahristani. Al-Rubaie, also a member of the United Iraqi Alliance's executive committee, confirmed that. And Sistani will insist that Islam is the national religion, with no laws that contradict Islamic principles. But at the same time, as he once told a Shia politician, "there is nothing written in the Qur'an about elections." For that, he said, he reads textbooks on democracy.

No clerics in the government is a good thing; Islam as the foundation of the government, let alone as the standard of what will be legal (no laws contradicting Islamic principles) is disastrous, and cannot lead to anything approaching freedom, not in the long run.

Austrian Economics Forum

2005-02-06T13:45:00.000-08:00

I just happened across a new forum for discussing Austrian economics. It's just now getting started, but I'm hoping that it will prove to be as profitable as the Objectivism Online Forum already has. My user name there is the same as Objectivism Online, The General. Hope to see you there.

The New Right

2005-02-06T11:35:00.000-08:00

John Lewis has a new article at Capitalism Magazine that sums up many of my rants and ravings over the last 7 months regarding conservatives.

Interestingly enough, I just came across a quote from Ayn Rand, which shows her prescience on this issue. It is an excerpt from a letter to (former) Senator Barry Goldwater, from 1960!

When a political movement lacks a firm, consistent set of principles, it can be taken over by any minority that knows what it wants. In the nineteen-thirties, the Liberals were thus overtaken by the Communists. According, I believe, to the FBI, two percent of the membership was sufficient to turn a Liberal organization into a Communist front. In any group of men, those who formulate basic principles will direct those who don't, and will determine the practical policy of the group. I am convinced that what the Communists did to the Liberals, the professional religionists are now attempting to do to the Conservatives.

--Letters of Ayn Rand, pg. 571

Mises on Rand

2005-02-03T00:33:00.000-08:00

I thought the following letter would be of interest to some of my readers; I vaguely knew Ludwig Von Mises respected Ayn Rand for defending capitalism, but I wasn't aware of any written record. With the centennial of Ayn Rand's birth going on, I happened across this letter, written to Ayn Rand by Mises shortly after the publication of Atlas Shrugged. You can find a copy of the original letter in PDF format here, but I also took the liberty of transcribing it here on the blog:

January 23, 1958

Mrs. Ayn Rand
36 East 36 Street
New York, N.Y.

Dear Mrs. Rand,

I am not a professional critic and I feel no call to judge the merits of a novel. So I do not want to detain you with the information that I enjoyed very much reading Atlas Shrugged and that I am full of admiration for your masterful construction of the plot.

But "Atlas Shrugged" is not merely a novel. It is also -- or may I say: first of all -- a cogent analysis of the evils that plague our society, a substantiated rejection of the ideology of our self-styled "intellectuals" and a pitiless unmasking of the insincerity of the policies adopted by governments and political parties. It is a devasting exposure of the "moral cannibals," the "gigolos of science" and of the "academic prattle" of the makers of the "anti-industrial revolution." You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.

If this be arrogance, as some of your critics observed, is still is the truth that had to be said in this age of the Welfare State.

I warmly congratulate you and I am looking forward with great expectations to your future work.

Sincerely,

Ludwig Mises

Iraqi Elections

2005-02-02T15:42:00.000-08:00

This op-ed from the Ayn Rand Institute was written prior to the elections in Iraq, but it explains why the optimism they've engendered is unwarranted.

Bush's Betrayal of America: The Iraqi Elections
Friday, January 28, 2005
By: Elan Journo

The Iraqi election will bring neither freedom to Iraq nor security to America.

President Bush claims that holding elections on January 30 will bring Iraq a step closer to freedom, an outcome allegedly vital to America's security. But the Iraqi election will bring neither freedom to Iraq nor security to America.

Consider the beliefs of the Iraqis who will be voting for "freedom" in the upcoming election. Like so many peoples in the Middle East, Iraqis regard themselves as defined by their membership in some larger group, not by their own ideas and goals. Most Iraqis owe their loyalties--and derive their honor from belonging--to their familial clan, tribe or religious sect, to which the individual is subservient. This deep-seated tribalism is reflected in the parties running in the elections: there is a spectrum ranging from advocates of secular collectivist ideologies (communists and Ba'athists) to those defined by bloodlines (such as Kurds and Turkmens) to members of various religious sects.

What will be the result of an election featuring such voters and candidates? Iraqis will merely bring to power some assortment of collectivists and Islamists. Whatever constitution those leaders eventually frame will reflect their desire to arrogate power to their particular group and to settle old scores, such as the longstanding enmity between the Shi'ite majority and Sunnis. It may well permit barbaric treatment of individuals, commonly accepted throughout the Islamic world, such as "honor-killings" of women believed to have had sex before marriage, or the banning of "un-Islamic" speech. And in the long term, the new nation may become an active sponsor of Islamic terrorism.

Perhaps the most alarming outcome for U.S. security would be a popularly elected theocracy aligned with or highly sympathetic to Iran's totalitarian regime. Iran is reported to have smuggled nearly one million people into Iraq to vote and has donated millions of dollars to sway the election in favor of a Shi’ite-led government. Already, Iranian intelligence officials are said to roam the hallways of Iraqi party offices, on whose walls hang pictures of Iran's supreme leader.

That a theocracy may rise to power in Iraq appears to be totally compatible with the President's conception of "freedom." As he told Fox News in October, if Iraq votes in a fundamentalist government, he would "be disappointed. But democracy is democracy. . . If that's what the people choose, that's what the people choose."

This certainly is democracy--in its literal sense of unlimited majority rule. But it is not freedom.

Political freedom does not mean the expression of a collective will, nor the granting of power to one pressure group to exploit others. It means the protection of an individual from the initiation of physical force by others. Freedom rests on the idea of individualism: the principle that every man is an independent, sovereign being, that he is not an interchangeable fragment of the tribe; that his life, liberty, and possessions are his by right, not by the permission of any group. Democracy (i.e., majority rule) rests on the primacy of the group; if your gang is strong enough, you can get away with whatever you want, sacrificing the life and wealth of whoever stands in your way. This is why America's Founders rejected democracy and created a republican form of government, limited by the inalienable rights of the smallest "minority": the individual. Our system does have elections, of course, but they are only legitimate within a constitutional framework that prohibits the majority from voting away the rights of anyone.

Can freedom be achieved in Iraq? In the near future, no--which is one of many reasons why it is suicidal for Bush to treat Iraqi freedom as the centerpiece of American self-defense. American security does not require that the terrorism-sponsoring nations of the Middle East be free, only that they be non-threatening--a goal that can be achieved by making it clear to the leaders of these nations that any continued sponsorship of terrorism will mean their immediate destruction.

In the long run, if Iraqis or other peoples of the Middle East are to become free--a task that is their responsibility, not America's--they must first recognize that their current ideas and practices are incompatible with freedom. They must recognize that they need to adopt a philosophy of individualism. A good first step toward teaching this lesson would be not granting them the pretense of elections.

I know I'm early, but...

2005-02-01T01:46:00.000-08:00

I wanted to write this now, when I'm certain I'll have the time. Tomorrow marks the 100th anniversary of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. Rather than write a post regaling her achievements and listing links, I'll direct you to Cox and Forkum's page, which does an admirable job of that. Instead, I'll share a small vignette from the Fountainhead, which captures my feelings towards Ayn Rand, and what her achievements mean to me personally:

After a long time he glanced about him--and then he saw that he was not alone. Some steps away from him a man sat on a boulder, looking down at the valley. The man seemed absorbed in the sight and had not heard his approach. The man was tall and gaunt and had orange hair.

He walked straight to the man, who turned his eyes to him; the eyes were grey and calm; the boy knew suddenly that they felt the same thing, and he could speak as he would not speak to a stranger anywhere else.

"That isn't real, is it?" the boy asked, pointing down.

"Why, yes, it is, now," the man answered.

"It's not a movie set, or a trick of some kind?"

"No. It's a summer resort. It's just been completed. It will be opened in a few weeks."

"Who built it?"

"I did."

"What's your name?"

"Howard Roark."

"Thank you," said the boy. He knew that the steady eyes looking at him understood everything these two words had to cover. Howard Roark inclinced his head, in acknowledgment.

Wheeling his bicycle by his side, the boy took the narrow path down the slope of the hill to the valley and the houses below. Roark looked after him. He had never seen that boy before, and he would never see him again. He did not know that he had given someone the courage to face a lifetime.

-Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, pgs. 505-506