AP Bias and a Dissident Israeli

The Counterterrorism Blog describes in detail why we shouldn't trust AP reports on the Israeli-"Palestinian" conflict. This was eye-opening even for me.

For years, it has been a dirty little secret that the Associated Press reporting from the West Bank and Gaza has been intellectually and professionally corrupt. The AP has been guilty of committing scores of DanRather-gates for years. As Andrew Cochran noted here on January 18, the AP's Muhammad Daraghmeh also works for the official PA news organ, as have numerous other so-called "journalists" whose obvious biases are never disclosed by the mainstream press. Will someone finally wake up?

The article is worth a full read, even for those of us who were tempted to hold a contest on when the "Palestinians" would, predictably, attack the Israelis after their foolish recent concessions.

I am of the same mind as Natan Sharansky on this one:

[H]e is one of the Likud "rebels" against Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw Israeli forces and settlements from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank. In late February, Sharansky voted against the Israeli cabinet's historic decision to evacuate 26 settlements, citing the lack of demand for a Palestinian quid pro quo. More moderate Likudniks view Sharon's plan as a necessary evil. The left suspects Sharansky of using his democracy ideas as a pretext for holding onto the Israeli-occupied West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.

Sharansky argues that he belongs to neither political camp. "I always tried to say, but failed to convince [people], that I belong to neither the right nor the left by Israeli criteria," he says. "Here, it's all about the borders. To me, borders are between democracies and nondemocracies."

Or, at least mostly. The "Palestinians" need not just "democracy," but a society that respects individual rights before there is any talk of their being a sovereign state. Read the article. Sharansky sounds interesting, intellectually. He's also a favorite author of Bush's. The book sounds interesting.....

-- CAV

WWJC

I was wondering when something like this article, "What Would Jesus Cut," would come out. RealClear Politics points out an article that cuts to the chase on why I see the Republican coalition being fundamentally unstable: Christianity, which espouses an altruist ethics, is incompatible with capitalism. For fellow Objectivists, there's no real need to read all of it. I'll quote the most important parts here.

Immoral. That's what several religious groups are calling President Bush's latest budget. The charge has political ramifications. It threatens to undermine some of Mr. Bush's support from voters concerned with values. But it also raises a deep question: Can budgets be moral or immoral? Is that really how the nation's spending plan should be judged? This emerging challenge is turning the "values" debate on its head. Liberals are putting policy issues in moral terms. Conservatives are resisting it.

This is really bad. Most of our culture accepts some form of the idea that the moral and the practical are not the same thing. Why? Because this idea stems directly from the mind-body dichotomy. "Idealists" -- bright-eyed liberals and religious folk alike -- will take the "moral" side of this false dichotomy while amoral "realists" will take the "practical" side. It is obvious that the "idealists" will tank the economy, but the "realists" will, too. Sooner or later, they'll either make a concession to the idealists for some range-of-the-moment gain or they'll be unable to defend why a cut should be made. And look who's seizing the moral high ground: the liberals. This is a lose-lose situation in the short term. Either certain religious groups will defect to the Democrats, especially if the latter cave on issues like abortion, or the Republicans will begin scuttling the better parts of their agenda to keep the religious right in the fold. Either way, we get a "best-of-breed" party from hell: the social agenda of the Christian right and the socialistic one of the left.

Meanwhile, Bush is still trying to have it both ways.

In his State of the Union address early this month, Bush argued that the 150 programs he wants cut or axed "are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities.... Taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all."

So if we're "getting results," it's OK for Uncle Sam to take my money and give it to someone else? This is where a feeble rationale will get you when only a moral case will do.

And then there's this. Who said the New Deal and its Christian foundation are dead?

He and others from his group - as well as a sister organization, Sojourners - have met with Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress. They have launched a nationwide "grassroots network" and plan a bus tour across the country to put pressure on Congress "to raise awareness of poverty as a religious and electoral issue."

"Spending more money on nuclear warheads and tax cuts that benefit the rich is not a strategy that would be affirmed by the biblical prophets," states one message to Sojourner supporters. It urges them to e-mail complaints to Congress.

What the hey? Read the whole article, if you can stand it! Better to be sick at your stomach now than blindsided later. Ayn Rand always said conservatives were worse than liberals. Sadly, she's right.

-- CAV

Reason Roundup 2-27-05 & Mars

Ugh! What a weekend! Friday saw me healthy, basically done writing a grant, and looking forward to a relatively free weekend. Just had to do finishing touches on the grant, get a birthday present for the wife, and write an essay for this contest for Objectivist bloggers. Believe it or not, I was out the door by about 6:00 Friday and my wife was able to leave with me! We actually had a nice dinner and a movie for the first time in ages. Hitch, starring Will Smith, was basically the only thing in the movie listings that looked even remotely appealing. It was, in fact, a pretty good romantic comedy and was well worth seeing.

Saturday saw me running around town on errands, followed by a crawfish boil at the house of one of my wife's coworkers. That was fun, but I felt myself coming down with a cold. So now I'm a bit under the weather and wondering whether I have enough in the tank to grind out the essay I planned on submitting for the contest. We'll see. I plan to post it as soon as I can if I do.

If my posting is erratic over the next few days, it's because the cold has turned out to be a beast. In the meantime, I direct your attention to the Reason Roundup over at the Charlotte Capitalist. and then, to these fascinating images of the Martian landscape (via Matt Drudge)!

-- CAV

Outflanked by the Commies?

[Update: For related posts, go here.]

The news out of the Middle East lately gives one cause for cautious optimism in the war. The secularist (but also separatist) Kurds get to play kingmaker in Iraq after the recent elections there. The Cedar Revolt (link via TIA Daily) is on in Lebanon (but its leaders aren't necessarily pro-American). But what of our own back yard?

Through the Houston Chronicle and Michelle Malkin, I've learned of a Central American criminal gang called M-13 that may be involved in smuggling terrorists into the United States through our porous border with Mexico. From the Chron:

A man wanted by the Honduran government for a bus massacre that killed 28 people, including six children, was arrested this month in Texas, the Homeland Security Department said Wednesday.

Authorities described the man, Ever Anibal Rivera Paz, who also goes by the name Franklin Jairo Rivera Hernandez, as the reputed leader of the Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, gang in Honduras.

The Central American gang, which has members in this country, is considered violent, and U.S. officials are concerned that they might help sneak al-Qaida terrorists into the United States.

Follow the link to Malkin for more information about this gang in particular. Luckily, she's been all over this one for awhile.

But the bad news really only begins with M-13. It seems that Central America and northern South America are rapidly falling under the influence of the Marxist government of Venezuela, which is headed by Hugo Chavez, who is also an admirer of Saddam Hussein. From RealClear Politics:

The Sandinistas, the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary party repeatedly rejected by Nicaraguan voters, are on the verge of accomplishing what U.S. officials call a "golpe technico" (technical coup), stripping President Enrique Bolanos of power. It is no isolated event restricted to a small Central American country.[italics mine] The Sandinistas have a rich and powerful ally in Hugo Chavez, the Marxist president of Venezuela.

Chavez has not only survived all Venezuelan challenges to his power but is making great strides in spreading his "Bolivarian Revolution" throughout the region. Besides the Nicaraguan connection, Chavez endangers shaky elected presidents in Peru and Ecuador and is aiming at unseating Bolivia's president, as he did his predecessor. At the same time, Colombia's conservative regime is busy staving off narco-guerrillas backed by Chavez. The Venezuelan is spreading his influence through Latin America more effectively than his friend and ally, Cuban President Fidel Castro, ever did.

The article (which should be read in full) mentions several other disturbing facts, among them that Venezuela has been bolstering its military with arms purchases from Russia, and that Nicaraguan military officials were (1) caught selling weapons to Colombian narco-terrorists and (2) released very quickly thanks to the efforts of Sandinista lawyers. So we have someone grabbing power right under our nose -- one who both admires and aids terrorists. Nicaragua, by the way, borders Honduras.

The good news is that the Bush administration may be waking up just in time to start addressing this threat.

-- CAV

Updates

4-17-05: Added reciprocal link to index post.

Caveat Emptor

I may soon emerge from the lab long enough to start considering which broadband provider I should consider. One thing I've been pondering is the ability to combine our cable service with broadband, and either or both of these with our telephone land line.

From the Houston Chronicle is the following cautionary tale. The take-home message is to be sure you know for a fact that you'll be able to call 911 if you get your phone service through your ISP using VoIP (voice-over-internet protocol).

John and his wife, Sosamma, were attacked by two men at their southwest Houston home earlier this month. As they struggled with the intruders, John was shot in the right thigh and torso. His wife was wounded in the left thigh.

But when their 17-year-old daughter Joyce, who was in the house at the time, tried 911, the call would not go through.

The attackers fled, leaving a shaken John wondering whether to reconsider his money-saving phone plan.

... [M]ost of the IP service providers don't interconnect with the 911 network," Executive Director John Melcher said.

... [U]nless [VoIP customers] sign up for service that routes calls to emergency dispatchers, [they] cannot contact the local 911 network.

John said he did not know he needed to sign up for the service, which is explained on the phone company's Web site [italics mine].

Good to know.

-- CAV

From Currency to "Food Additive"

The word "salary" originates from the Latin adjective for "of salt", as used in the phrase "salarium argentum" ("salt money"), when Roman soldiers were paid with it. But today, there are some who want the government to withhold the same substance from ordinary citizens! From today's Houston Chronicle:

A consumer group sued the federal government today, saying that salt is killing tens of thousands of Americans and that regulators have done too little to control salt in food.

Despite advisories to take it easy on sodium, Americans are now consuming about 4,000 milligrams a day -- nearly double the recommended limit to keep blood pressure under control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest said.

So the CSPI renewed a lawsuit first filed in 1983 to ask federal courts to force the Food and Drug Administration to declare sodium a food additive instead of categorizing it as "generally recognized as safe." This would give the agency the authority to set limits for salt in foods.

We're already thinking about a fat tax. What's next? A ban on salt shakers?

As usual, the thing not mentioned here is that which advocates of the nanny state are really trying to get rid of: self-control. They note that many people aren't doing enough on their own to control their sodium intake and use this as an excuse to add yet more government controls over everyone. According to the article, such a measure might "save about 150,000 lives each year." Granted, for the sake of argument, but wouldn't that also make over 300 million lives less free?

I have a humble request for my would-be nannies: I'll worry about my own life and you mind your own business.

-- CAV

Democrats: Court This Minority

When I first heard that the Democrats would be "soul-searching" after the election, I was hoping this meant that they'd be rethinking their agenda. Instead, the title for a Star Parker column hits the nail on the head: "Dean, Dems frozen in time warp." Think circa 1970, when "soul" was synonymous with "black." Yes. The Dems are still mired in the notion that they are the party of the many small constituencies arrayed for battle against the honky "establishment".

Two stories leapt out at me today that indicate that the Democrats on the whole remain out of touch, condescending elitists. First, we have Howard Dean. You know the one. He's about to live as an expatriate in "Red America" so he can learn the mindset over there, not to see whether they might have valid concerns that the Democrats might better address than the Republicans, but so he can learn their "language" well-enough to try to fool 'em in '08. I hear he has book advances lined up already for his tale of roughing it. He'll open with a list of necessities he bought, then spend the rest of the book hoping his readers have forgotten that he's not truly "living off the land." It's got an idyllic setting near a lake. He's writing it under a pseudonym with a French-sounding last name as an "olive branch" to John Kerry. It is thought that this highly original and insightful book may put forth a wholly new philosophy of reverence towards nature. Its title will, "Recycle the letter W," according to Joe Biden, who is thought by some to be Dean's ghost-writer. However, despite his solicitous attitudes towards "Red (Neck) America," it seems that Dean's not too worried about anyone who might already be on the planta- -- I mean, be in his camp. As Star Parker puts it:

It didn't take long for Howard Dean, the new Democratic National Committee chairman, to show his credentials as a graduate of the Trent Lott school of racial sensitivity training.

His remarks, at a meeting with the uniformly Democratic Congressional Black Caucus, that Republicans would need the "hotel staff" if they wanted to fill a room with blacks, tell us a lot about the man. They also tell us a lot about the Democratic Party that has chosen him to lead it out of its abyss.

We can chalk this up as a gaffe, and by one man. But might Dean have accidentally revealed the prevalent mindset of his party? This is a valid concern since he was elected to head the DNC. Consider this story by Democratic consultant Mark Mellman. It seems that the Democrats are bemused that they've been drawing less and less of "the Hispanic vote" in recent elections. The article has lots of number crunching to that effect, but the fact that Democratic support among Hispanics is falling is far less important than the angst among the Democrats about it or how they plan to approach the problem.

Shortly after the election, I wrote here that for too long Democrats had considered Latinos part of the base, [emphasis mine] failing to acknowledge changes and contradictions in their political views. For example, we found in 2002 that while Latinos identified as Democrats, unlike other partisans, they bore relatively little ill will toward Republicans — a dangerous situation for us.

Mellman is right that Hispanics aren't part of the Democratic base, but he sees this only on the banal level of the polling data. He and his fellow Democrats really should ask himself this: What, intrinsically, makes Hispanics part of any political base, much less the property of the Democrats? And the fact that they fail to ask this question causes them to fail to understand that the "why" of the shift should be telling them something.

Consultants who specialize in Latino politics have long been directing Democrats’ attention to Spanish-dominant recent immigrants. Those are the easiest voters to poll, but, important as those voters are, they are not where the problem seems to be.

Latinos who voted for Kerry in very large numbers tended to be poorer, Spanish-speaking and living in Latino neighborhoods. Those less likely to have voted for Kerry include better-off, English-dominant and bilingual folks who live mainly in more diverse neighborhoods [italics mine].

According to the Annenberg polling, the decline in Democratic support among Latinos came almost entirely in English-language interviews. Kerry did just one point worse than Gore had among Spanish-dominant voters.

In other words, Hispanics who have, dare I say, assimilated tend to vote more like members of a certain even larger demographic that the Dems tend to ignore, except maybe to call them "Anglos" or think of them as "Rednecks" from time to time. (Note the parallel with "African-Americans" and "hotel staffers" here.) What is going on here? Why have they sold out? Why aren't these "Latinos" being the "Democrat ballot-box stuffers" they're supposed to be? Think I'm being silly? Try this.

Recapturing the enthusiasm of the Hispanic community is a central task for Democrats. To be successful, we must first admit we have a problem and locate it with precision. Only then will we be able to develop the strategies and tactics to stanch the losses.

Screw "the enthusiasm of the Hispanic community." Why not try appealing to everyone equally? Here's the problem, Blue Party: you've forgotten to think of people as individuals. Hispanics often arrive here as poor immigrants who barely know English, if they do at all. Government benefits may seem tempting to them then, before they've had a chance to get on their feet and prosper as America lets them do. They become prosperous, learn English, and realize that it's on their productive backs that the benefits your party offers will ride. When this happens -- when they realize the American Dream -- your party is toast. In other words, they get up to speed on the same things that most whites have known since the days of Jimmah Carter. There is no fundamental difference between my needs as a white man, or the needs of a black man, or of a Hispanic man. (And this is what the assimilated Hispanic data ought to be telling you.) It's time to stop confusing wealth redistribution programs that set up artificial conflicts with "needs." The Republicans seem to be slowly becoming confused in this way. The Democrats have a big opportunity to seize the mantle of economic freedom here. Some Democrats get this, Terry Michael, for one. To quote him: Here's rough cut: 'Government: Assure liberty by staying as far away as possible from our bank accounts, our bedrooms and our bodies.'"

What's so much better about this formula than the one Dean et al. refuse to abandon? It appeals to everyone because it protects the ability of everyone to live as he sees fit. And note that along with the mass appeal that the term "everyone" suggests, the word is a compound of "every" and "one." As Ayn Rand once said, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." When the Democrats figure out which minority they should reach out to, they will no longer become the party of special interests, but will be able to claim rightly to be the party to whom all Americans are the natural constituents. But this requires that the Democrats stop classifying us like barnyard animals to be yoked to a political machine (or milked, as the case may be), and seeing us as individuals whose freedom must be defended.

-- CAV

USS Ironic

I'm glad to see (via the Charlotte Capitalist) that Cox and Forkum, not to be outdone by Scrappleface, put in their two cents' worth on the recent commissioning of the USS Jimmy Carter. From a news account:

Carter, who served as U.S. president from 1977-81 and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, ranked the naming of the submarine his highest tribute.

"The most deeply appreciated and emotional honor I've ever had is to have this great ship bear my name," he said during the ceremony at the Naval Submarine Base in New London.

Carter, who was greeted by a 21-gun salute, said he expects the crew will use the submarine's "extraordinary capabilities — many top secret — to preserve peace, to protect our country and to keep high the banner of human rights around the world."

Hmmm. "Preserve peace," eh? He's clearly a Scrappleface reader, and a pretty literal one at that.

[The] Jimmy Carter ... featur[es] a high-tech sonar system which alerts enemy forces to its presence and a safety device on the Nerf missiles which allows firing only after an enemy missile impact.

An "honor"? He mustn't have been thinking of something like this. Heh! Don't get a "below average" on an ORSE, boys, or you might get a "malaise speech"! (And hell, if the Old Man is upset enough, maybe he can get Jimmah himself to give it!)

-- CAV

A Port List

Top Ten Poorly-Covered Stories for the Year

Via Michelle Malkin is a pointer to this story which lists (and elaborates upon) the top ten news stories from the past year that should have been better covered by major media. Here is a list of the stories themselves. For more, see the article.

1. America's vulnerability to nuclear terrorism.

2. Sandy Berger's pilfering of classified documents in an apparent attempt to sanitize President Clinton's legacy.

3. The U.S. border as a conduit for terrorists.

4. The validity of the Swiftboat vets' charges against Sen. John Kerry

5. America's out-of-control judiciary.

6. Uncontrolled immigration.

7. The Philadelphia 5.

8. The U.N. oil-for-food scandal.

9. Genocide in Darfur.

10. Saddam links with al-Qaida.

On item (4), there is an excellent story by Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite columnists, over at Capitalism Magazine that is worth a full read. I like how they summarized the article, because the capsule simultaneously punctures two myths: (1) that there is no such thing as objectivity because "everyone is biased" and (2) that one is disqualified from having an opinion (even when up-front about it) when reporting news. When you put these two together, you can see their real intent: to give liberals an excuse to give biased coverage (or none at all, depending), while pretending that (1) liberalism is not an ideology, and (2) that they're reporting the news.

The recent resignation of CNN's news director, Eason Jordan, after his outrageous remarks about our military at an international forum were reported on the Internet, is only the latest in a series of media scandals, of which Dan Rather's forged documents were just one. Media bias does not consist in having liberal or conservative opinions but in how you do your job -- or don't do it [italics mine].

Case in point: as I once mentioned, Ayn Rand held two Christian publications in different regards. National Review she disliked because it pretended to be a secular publication. On the other hand, she respected Christian Science Monitor because they were up front about where they stood on matters of religion.

There Should be Such a List for the Last Half-Century: Nominations Welcome!

But here's an idea: how 'bout a top ten list of stories poorly covered for the past half-century? One that definitely belongs there is the escalation in gasoline prices. There are two parts to this sad tale. (1) On the foreign policy front is our appeasement of Middle Eastern governments who nationalized oil fields belonging to petrochemical firms. (2) On the domestic front is the unreported role of environmentalism, covered very well in this article at Capitalism Magazine. Nothing in the article surprises me, but I've never seen this part of the story presented so well, and all in one place to boot. Point it out to at least one other person today if you'd like to pay less for gas before the end of the war.

On second thought, these two should really fall under separate items on such a list, and the appeasement story would certainly make it there alone. A more generic "how environmentalism has damaged the world economy" would probably subsume item (2) above. (For another example, see the Kyoto Countup, via Secular Foxhole.) Another that deserves to be on the list is the genocide of mosquito bite victims brought about by the banning of DDT. Kinda makes the genocide in Darfur look like chickenfeed when you consider that "[s]ixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT." This ranks right up there with the government-imposed starvations of early Soviet Russia!

That's three biggies so far. Suggestions for more are welcome. Remember: BIG story with small or nonexistent media coverage.

Words of Wisdom

And then, via RealClear Politics, is a piece , again by Thomas Sowell. Sowell occasionally will put out a column called "Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene." These are always good, but this one is particularly so. Here is a sampler.

On raising taxes to "save" social "security":

Raising Social Security taxes today will not leave a dime more to pay pensions to future retirees. Right now there is more money coming into the system than is going out -- and the difference gets spent on other things. Higher taxes now would mean a bigger excess to be spent on other things, leaving nothing more for the future.

On price controls and drugs:

Time and again, over the centuries, price controls have produced three things: shortages, quality deterioration and black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things with pharmaceutical drugs?

On eminent domain:

What "eminent domain" laws mean in practice is that politicians have a right to seize your property and turn it over to someone else, in order to gain campaign contributions and win votes.

(Follow the link on eminent domain. It's hair-raising. Capitalism Magazine had some great stuff up today.) Here's a quote that touches on a theme I think more people would do well to understand better: Some great political ideals simply do not apply to the realm of morality.

Everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty -- in a court of law. But we cannot just mindlessly repeat words outside the context in which they apply. If you discovered that your spouse had been secretly checking into motels with someone else, would you presume innocence until proven guilty?

Read the whole thing. It's all good.

-- CAV

Updates

4-17-05: Corrected a reference to a blog.

Reviews: 2 Movies, 1 Reggae Concert

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

On the recommendations of Raymund and several others, my wife and I rented Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind this weekend. I pretty well agree with Raymund's assessment, and will add that the movie is very suspenseful. My major complaint with it is that Clementine (Kate Winslet) is such a flaky moonbat that Joel Barish's (Jim Carrey) fight for her fails to make sense on some levels. (To explain this any further would spoil the plot.) One could counter that this flakiness was integral to the plot, though, and subsequent characterization almost overcomes this objection. (Which is likely my taste in sane women asserting itself....) Be that as it may, take Raymund's advice: "Go rent it already." Great SF that is the best of a line of Jim Carrey movies that I've privately christened the "universe revolves around Jim Carrey genre" (Think The Truman Show, The Majestic, and Bruce Almighty.), but with a twist. Rating: A-.

Radio

Friday, the wife and I did a "half-date" night. With me toiling away in the lab till all hours and her working on her dissertation, we're sometimes lucky to get in a nice dinner. This we did, and then went home late to watch the movie Radio. I think I recall it being recommended to us, but I don't know by whom. The plotline for the movie can be found here, and the "consensus line" seems about right to me for what most would think of the movie: "The story is heavy on syrupy uplift and turns Radio into a saint/cuddly pet."

While I'm not wild about the movie either, I have a slightly different take. As a depiction of real-life events, I see the movie as a chronicle of the triumph of a man's goodwill over great odds to improve the life of a handicapped boy. On the other hand, the movie tends to minimize the very legitimate fears of some of the parents about the boy being allowed in the small-town high school. (At one point, a television screen with an episode of All in the Family, Archie Bunker in full bigot mode, is there to helpfully suggest what we are to think of such concerns.) Aside from that annoyance, the movie does not veer as far into the realm of the syrupy as I expected. In fact, at one point, the coach who befriends the boy explains why he did so, and it actually makes sense. The storytelling was pretty good. Rating: B-.

Matisyahu

On a lark, Raymund and I went Sunday to see "Hasidic Reggae superstar" (as the concert flyer billed him) Matisyahu. When he first told me about the performance, I'll admit that I laughed. Reggae has certainly gained a worldwide following, but this was a twist I'd never imagined, even with the help of the song "Reggae Bandwagon". This was right up there with an account I once read of Fats Waller making a jazz recording with a bagpipe player on a trip to Scotland. (Alas! That seems to have been lost to history.) In other words, this was such a bizarre combination I wanted to see if it could be done at all. The music was not bad, though there was a marked tendency by the band to slip into rock-and-roll that I didn't much care for. I unfortunately know next to nothing of Jewish culture. As a result, while I was under the impression that Matisyahu was sometimes attempting to blend traditional Jewish song with Reggae, I was really in no position to judge how well he did that tradition justice. In the main, the music was enjoyable, but inconsistently so.

-- CAV

Updates

12-7-05: Added hypertext anchors.

Carnival of the Capitalists

Be sure to stop by the Raw Prawn for this week's installment.

Reason Roundup 2-20-05

Be sure to stop by the Charlotte Capitalist for this week's edition of the Reason Roundup.

Say It Ain't So, Hakeem!

[Correction and Clarification Below]

In 1919, the Chicago Black Sox scandal, in which the White Sox threw the World Series, gave American English a phrase that has been used by sports fans and others surprised by betrayal ever since: "Say it ain't so, Joe!" Today, on my perusal of the Sunday Houston Chronicle, I think I have an idea of how the young boy who is supposed to have first uttered that phrase to his hero, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, must have felt.

It seems that Hakeem "the Dream" Olajuwon, greatly-admired local sports figure, hero of the back-to-back NBA championships of the Houston Rockets, and a major local investor and entrepreneur, has, at best, shown a careless disregard for fellow citizens of his adopted country. According to the Chronicle, Olajuwon once spoke at a conference whose sponsor was later linked to the terrorist organization Hamas, and is also under scrutiny for donations made by his mosque to organizations suspected of having terrorist links. He also, unsurprisingly, has been actively seeking converts to the "religion of peace" from among his wealthy NBA acquaintances.

Olajuwon has never made a secret of his devotion to Islam. In fact, this faith was often noted as a strong positive in accounts by sports writers clearly relieved at not having to report on boorish behavior on the part of yet another sports figure. Compared to most, Hakeem looked like a role model. And, given the fact that sports writers frequently hold religious faith in high regard, it is hardly surprising that Olajuwon got a free pass for years.

But let's look at what this fine man of faith has said and might have done. According to the Chronicle:

... Olajuwon told an audience at a 1995 conference in Houston sponsored by a group later linked to a terrorist organization that America was near morally bankrupt and Islam was the only solution.

... The former Houston Rockets basketball star told a crowd of mostly young people, "America needs Islam, Islam is the only solution and the only way of life." He added, "The morality of America is almost bankrupt. There is no morals [sic]."

And what passes for morality? I've already covered this at length. Do you think a devout Moslem is going to be unaware of this? Certainly, one can point out that many "devout" Christians seem unaware of certain passages of their own scriptures that exhort believers to slay the unfaithful. However, not only are Moslems, as a rule, much more familiar with the Koran (and likely to accept it literally), the Koran is rife with passages that damn the unbeliever and advocate his destruction. I don't think Olajuwon was ignorant of this. So, "Islam is the only solution," eh? It sounds like a pretty final one to me. Thanks, Hakeem!

The Chronicle article is, predictably, easy on Olajuwon. Nevertheless even it notes that, in the words of a former FBI official, Olajuwon's words and stature could be used to recruit new enemy combatants for the religious war.

"There is a big leap between 'America is morally corrupt' to 'Let's blow up the World Trade Center.' " But, he said, "It is step one in convincing people America is the enemy. It could be that the people who invited him to speak coached him to say that."

While this is true, it is also treating the matter at hand pretty charitably. When are we going to hold people accountable for what they devoutly believe? Olajuwon had no problem saying this. When is he going to go out and publicly renounce terrorism? I don't know, but he may be too busy funding it. [See asterisked note below.]

Olajuwon has been a devout Muslim, and has observed that religion's requirements to give to the needy and share the faith.

But some of his efforts have become questionable in the post-9/11 world.

Tax records of the Islamic Da'Wah Institute, which Olajuwon founded in Houston show donations in 2000 and 2002 to two groups that have had their assets frozen and that have been charged with funding Islamic terrorism.

A small amount went to the Holy Land Foundation, now under indictment. Federal agents in October raided what the government described as the U.S. headquarters of the group in Columbia, Mo.

Most of Olajuwon's questionable donations went to the Islamic African Relief Agency's U.S. affiliate, which was "providing direct financial support to Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, Hamas and other terrorist groups," according to Treasury Secretary John Snow, when that group had its assets frozen.

Has Olajuwon apologized? Not as far as I can tell. Instead, he's screaming "Discrimination!" Quoth the Chron: "In a telephone conversation with several reporters last week, Olajuwon said he was being unfairly linked to questionable groups, perhaps as part of a larger bigotry toward Islam."

I am bitterly disappointed by this news. I want to say, "Say it ain't so, Hakeem!" But as I pointed out last week, his religion makes lying a virtue when used "in defense" of Islam, so what would anything he says be worth now? After all, the Islamofascists seem to think that the best defense is offense, else why all the killing?

September 11, 2001 was a day that started out beautifully for me, with sunshine, blue skies, and crisp air. I went in to work as usual that day, only to be greeted by our affable vivarian. He told me that planes had hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. We usually would swap pleasantries or jokes, so I naturally thought he was kidding at first. He wasn't, though, and to this day, similar, pleasant weather reminds me of that horrible day, at least for a moment. Now, I can chalk up another pleasant memory tainted by Hakeem's "beautiful" religion: the festive horn-honking that went on all night after the Rockets won their first championship. In a way, it would have been better had Olajuwon followed in Shoeless Joe's footsteps and thrown the bloody thing.

-- CAV

Correction and Clarification

* Reader Adrian Hester points out correctly that Hakeem Olajuwon admitted that his donations were a mistake. On that count, I dropped the ball and there's nothing to do but 'fess up. Absent a finding by investigators to the contrary, there really is no reason to be as disappointed in Olajuwon as I was. Having said that, there are other issues that readers Adrian Hester and Curtis Weeks bring up that I think bear addressing.

(1) On the matter of fighting a war: The use of force is not, per se, immoral. It is the initiation of the use of force that is. The various governments of the Moslem world that have made it possible for terrorists to threaten our nation are guilty of acts of war. As the victim of the initiation of force on the part of these enemy combatants, the United States is free to do whatever is necessary militarily to ensure that this does not happen again. What, exactly, this entails has provoked lots of debate, but the essential point to remember is this: innocents who die in this war have been killed by the terrorists and their accomplice state governments in the Middle East. Why? Because the terrorists made it necessary for our country to defend itself. This would include anyone killed by our use of nuclear weapons, were that necessary for us to defend our country.

Furthermore, on the government's investigation of Olajuwon and his finances: we're at war with Moslem militants. Our government is doing part of what it should here and I still find Olajuwon's comments about "discrimination" to be puzzling. Perhaps there's an element of frustration there. Nevertheless, if I were Moslem, some of my money ended up in terrorist hands, and I weren't being investigated, I'd wonder what the hell was going on.

(2) On the fact that some Moslems regard suicide bombing as heretical: This is a good point as is the one about Christians who fund Irish terrorism. Both cases demonstrate some of the dangers inherent in ideologies "grounded" in faith. When scriptures call for murder of nonbelievers, as the Bible and the Koran do, on what basis can someone who holds these books as revealed truth say this is heretical? Either on the basis of a contradictory portion of the same scripture or by selectively ignoring said passages. Both are really the same thing. We have people, who merely oppose murder, but why? It's usually because of other cultural influences common to members of that religion, and these may or may not be the case for a given individual. But the important point is this: such opposition is not something that springs logically from their faith, but from a selective rejection thereof. So the followers of two major religions spare our lives mainly by not following these religions too closely.

But there is a greater problem inherent in faith as an epistemology: it eliminates rational persuasion as a means of dealing with other human beings. Peter Schwartz puts this better than I can:

But if faith--i.e., the embrace of beliefs contrary to reason--is one's ruling principle, there is no peaceful way to resolve conflicts. There can be no appeal to facts, no logic, no rational arguments--there can be only the insistence that some non-provable belief be accepted. And what could back up that insistence other than fists or guns--or airplanes smashing into buildings?

This is at the root of terrorism. And this is why it is not unique to Islam.

(3) On taqiyya: I first learned about taqiyya from posts at Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch. I decided to go to a third source for its definition and this is what I got: "Taqiyya is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs to non-Muslims." The article goes on to state that the practice is acknowledged by Sunni Moslems as well as by Shiites and mentions its use. It is ostensibly used to avoid persecution, though the article says that interpretations of this practice vary from group to group. Given the supremacist nature of Islam, and how the religion pervades every aspect of life, I can't very easily give this a pass. What you or I might not regard as persecution might well be considered such by a Moslem.

At a minimum, the fact that this practice exists and seems to be widely interpreted (including it use by terrorists to avoid the "persecution" of someone disagreeing with them) can make it difficult to know whether one is being told the truth by a Moslem.

(4) On judging others: No. The fact that one professes to be a Moslem does not automatically make him evil any more than I would take someone's pronouncement that he's an Objectivist at face value to mean he's good. Having said that, I see nothing wrong in being more wary of Moslems than followers of many other religions. Why? Because that religion preaches that I should convert or die, and its unusual concept of jihad has caused many to assign this teaching a higher value than their own lives. Being more wary of someone initially, however, is not the same thing as pronouncing an irrevocable judgment.

Updates

2-21-05: Added correction and clarification.

Submarine Humor

Back in my days at Naval Officer Candidate School, one of the courses I had to take had a section dealing with anti-submarine warfare (from the laughable perspective of the surface fleet). The instructor did get in one good jab in his introductory lecture though. "The submarine has already done half your job: it has sunk itself. All you have to do is make sure it stays there."

Why did I remember this? Because sometimes in Naval training, you'd get as a course instructor some crusty, colorful old chief or warrant officer who'd occasionally tell good sea stories if he finished a lecture early. Today, I made a stop over at A Geezer's Corner, where salty dog (and Navy lifer wannabe) Bothenook tells a couple of hilarious sea stories. If morbid curiosity doesn't drive you there to find out what, exactly, a "shit laser" is, go there to laugh out loud. Both stories are great. Thanks for the memories, chief! (Sez Gus, probably stepping in it. But at least I wasn't sprayed with it! Heh!)

And it was also through the Geezer that I learned of Scrappleface's take on the commissioning of the USS Jimmy Carter. This demanded skewering and I'm glad somebody did it. (Although Scrappleface seems unaware that there really is an animal called the sea hare. It's a mollusc that balls up and squirts ink when attacked. So the real thing is also appropriate!)

-- CAV

Blog and Book

I have a policy against blogging from work during the day, but I'll make a quick exception to say....

Welcome Charlotte Capitalist Readers!

Over some lunchtime blog viewing, I noticed that this blog is now listed on the blogroll of the Charlotte Capitalist! As always, I appreciate the recognition (and extra traffic) this lends to my site. Before I encountered the Charlotte Capitalist, I was reading about trends in blogging and one of them was to establish a niche by focusing on the local community. This is part of the approach of the Charlotte Capitalist, but what makes this blog stand out is that, as far as I know, it's the first such blog to do this from an Objectivist perspective. But because Charlotte faces many of the same issues other growing cities do (e.g., light rail.) the 'Capitalist can also serve as a resource for other Objectivists who might want to become more intellectually active in their own local affairs. In addition, its weekly Reason Roundup feature highlights posts from other Objectivist blogs. I've become aware of quite a few other Objectivist blogs out there because of this, and look forward to visiting these more often in the future.

But don't take my word for it. Stop by and see for yourselves what this blog has to offer.

More on Shut Up and Sing

I recently gave a very negative preliminary review of Laura Ingraham's Shut up and Sing. While I still have very big problems with the book philosophically, in fairness I have to report that: (1) there is quite a bit of useful information therein and (2) stylistically, it does get easier to read after the first few pages. I doubt I would end up giving it much better than a very qualified recommendation after all, but I'll probably manage to finish it. My current impression: it's terrible philosophically, but has plenty of useful information/ideas for further research. Only if this impression changes substantially or I learn about anything particularly important from this book do I plan to comment further.

-- CAV

Misconceptions about Islam

I recently saw a poster advertising a lecture to be given -- at a state-run medical school no less -- by one Brother Galloway (probably of the local cell of CAIR). The title was something like, "Misconceptions about Islam." I'm sorry, but this is one lecture that a moment's worth of thought will reveal to be disingenuous at best. There was no need to attend.

Even the slightest bit of consideration of the context in which this insultingly-titled lecture was given should make it clear what I mean. Why might a member of a group want to lecture on "misconceptions" about that group? It's either because (a) there are misconceptions about that group, (b) because that group is being discriminated against, (c) a little of (a) and (b), or (d), the speaker wants to spread misconceptions about his group.

Let's take (a: there are misconceptions about that group). Which religion's holy text, which many (if not most) of its followers take literally, says the following?

[These and their brief interpretations are from the Jihad Watch post referenced above.]

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (2:190-191)

Slay the disbelievers. Sounds like a religious war to me. So does this:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein. (2:216-217)

And this, which identifies the enemies of the Muslims as disbelievers and friends of Satan:

Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value). And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!" Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. (4:74-76)

Here the religious warriors, or the angels who protect them, are to behead those who do not believe:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (8:12)

Cf. this verse, which also makes clear the religious character of the fight:

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost. (47:4)

This one states the goal of the fighting in terms that also make clear that the war is religious:

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:39)

This one, like many others, makes it clear that the fighting that believers must do is not spiritual, but physical -- otherwise the promise that the believers will overcome long odds would make little or no sense:

O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding. (8:65)

This is the celebrated "Verse of the Sword":

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)

Again, hard to see that as spiritual or metaphorical fighting. And this one establishes that the warfare is against the People of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)

Robert Spencer points out that this is just a sampling. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris lists no less than five pages of quotations from the Koran in which unbelievers are vilified. The two main conceptions of Islam I know about are (1) that it advocates the slaughter of nonbelievers (sometimes after first "inviting" them to convert), and (2) that it is a "religion of peace." Somehow I doubt that Galloway scheduled a lecture whose audience would be predominantly non-Moslem in order to read death threats to them. I'm betting he said that (1) was the misconception. And guess what? It's OK to lie to defend the faith, according to his religion. They call it taqiyya.

Which brings us to (b: because that group is being discriminated against). Discrimination is, granted, sometimes hard to quantify, especially since the days of lynching are over. Oh, wait! They're not! There had been concern since 3016 people were basically lynched by Moslem fanatics on September 11, 2001 that there might be a massive backlash against Moslems here in America. There has been no such backlash, as Michelle Malkin points out. Yes. There have been a few incidents, and even a murder (of a Sikh it turns out). But beyond a few isolated incidents, there has been nothing like the systematic and persistent campaign waged by ... followers of the religion (you know, the one "of peace") whose followers everyone was so afraid would be persecuted. Spotting Moslem fanatics the 3016 dead of September 11, 2001, and assuming that the 265 killed in the downing of American Airlines 587 in New York were not due to terrorism, there are still 17 murders in America (since the mass execution in 2001) that have almost certainly been committed in the name of Islam. The very idea that Moslems face discrimination in this country would be laughable if it were not so obscene and so insulting.

So with (a: there are misconceptions about that group) and (b: because that group is being discriminated against) both being eliminated, so is (c). This leaves us to conclude (d: that Galloway's lecture was basically an exercise in taqiyya). His own scriptures say we're fair game if we don't do as they say, and it's the guys who read the same book who've been doing all the lynching. Once again, I find myself lamenting our nation's lack of anger. How in hell could such an event even be conceived of, let alone permitted to occur? And thanks to its occurrence in a state-run school, I had to help finance it! Morally, this is no different than, say, making a black man in the days of Jim Crow pay admission to some Klansman's lecture, the substance of which is something along the lines of, "It's not murder because 'those people' are subhumans anyway." This is truly amazing. If there's such a thing as spitting in someone's face and telling him it's raining, this is it. (And even that's putting it diplomatically.)

And while we're on the subject of murder, lying, and other tactics of "holy" war, consider this. What if I'd decided to attend this farce? What if I brought up the passages of the Koran I quoted above or asked hostile questions? Would someone there note who I was and arrange for my execution? I'm not just being an alarmist here. Moslems have done this sort of thing before and might be doing it again.

There is a point beyond which anything resembling civilized debate is only a pretense that can help the wrong side. Anyone who follows a religion whose text demands my obedience or death has passed that line. Many people nod off at lectures, but I'm afraid in this case that the napping hasn't been confined to the auditorium. Please, please! Wake up!

-- CAV

She's OK, but Someone Lacks a Spine!

From the Houston Chronicle is a story about a hospital whose administration has been single-handedly cowed by a perfectly healthy octogenarian squatter!

"The thing is, I have no medical problem. I've been here more than a year, never had any medication, never had any treatment, never had a fever, have a perfect heart, blood pressure is like a teenager," [Sarah] Nome said from the hospital north of San Francisco.

"It isn't that I'm not ready to go. I just have nowhere to go," she added.

Exasperated hospital officials persuaded a judge to approve her eviction.

Maybe it's because they're in California that they need a judge to do something that a few orderlies could do: kick her out. And let me shelve my usual objections to it for a moment, but what of the welfare state? Surely, someone could have sent a form or two up the bureaucratic chain to have her transferred to a retirement home! Or, if she's so healthy and lucid, they could have put her to work. I'm flabbergasted! The bill is over $1 million so far and this has gone on for over a year since this patient received her discharge papers!

How the hell is such a standoff even possible? Is the legal situation in California so ridiculously bad that they're afraid of getting sued? Or is some hospital administrator waiting to harvest a spine?

-- CAV

Neither Red Nor Hot

Over at Capitalism Magazine are two articles well worth a full read that each address themes I've discussed here before.

The first discusses the larger issue behind the Ward "Cherokee" Churchill controversy: separation of academy and state. From the article.

[I]t is no solution for the government to put pressure (or worse) on public universities whenever a professor teaches ideas opposed to the views of a majority of taxpayers. The moment the government becomes arbiter of what can and cannot be taught on campus, the moment speech becomes subject to majority vote, censorship results.

What then is the answer? Privatize the universities.

The truth is that public education as such is antithetical to free speech. Whether leftists are forced to pay taxes to fund universities from which their academic spokesmen are barred (as Gov. Owens’ solution requires), or non-leftists are forced to pay taxes to fund professors who condemn America as a terrorist nation, someone loses the right to choose which ideas his money supports.

And for those who want a more humorous take on the National Whinjun, read this (via Watcher of Weasels).

The second article discusses global warming as a religion. (At this blog, I've discussed the lack of scientific evidence for global warming and the idea of environmentalism as a religion before.)

A federal hurricane research scientist named Chris Landsea has resigned from the UN-sponsored climate assessment team because his group’s leader had politicized the process. Landsea said there was little evidence to justify Kevin Trenberth’s assertion in October that global warming was responsible for the strong hurricanes experienced this past year and that “the North Atlantic hurricane Season of 2004 may well be a harbinger of the future.”

Said Landsea in his resignation letter, “It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity had been due to global warming. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.”

Landsea closed his resignation letter by saying, “I personally cannot in good faith contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Read both articles. They're excellent.

-- CAV

Updates

2-17-05: (1) Added link to entry on environmentalism as a religion and corrected description of link to global warming entry. (2) Corrected two typos. (How did I misspell "environmentalism" the same way twice?)

A Stinker at the 'Thinker

I often find pretty good articles over at the American Thinker, but I found a real travesty over there today that pretty much illustrates the philosophical bankruptcy of the conservative movement. In Ward Churchill is Right. Partly., Christopher Chantrill starts off making a valid point about the war with Islamofascism: that America is an empire. But his attempt to explain how our nation got to be that way is, in the immortal words of Toby Charles, "High, wide, and not handsome at all!"

Here is how he explains why the West is so powerful.

The West is powerful because it relies on a Hayekian spontaneous order, the result of millions of decisions by millions of little men and women. It is the American settler moving west and compelling the U.S. cavalry to come and rescue him from irate Indians. It is the humble clerk of the East India Company who got a military friend to teach him a bit of soldiering and then went out and conquered Bengal. It is the young bookkeeper getting interested in the barrels of Pennsylvania oil being traded by his employer, Hewitt and Tuttle, commission agents of Cleveland, Ohio.

This sort of Hayekian thinking has even seeped into the military. Western generals now train soldiers to be “self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility” instead of just fodder for artllery.

Let us speak truth to ourselves. Our double-entry bookkeeping, our self-government, our rule of law, and our limited-liability companies are more than mere wonders of the world. They are more than innocent inventions; they are the terrifying force multipliers that made us into world conquerors and world benefactors.

This is all true, but I somehow don't think the Founding Fathers got together and decided that they wanted to "rely on spontaneous order" to forge a great nation. Psst! I believe they were victors in a war they fought -- at enormous personal risk -- in order to protect their individual rights. This phrase is never mentioned.

Rather, Chantrill, who sees this war as some kind of sectarian squabble between Christians and Moslems, seems to assume that our entire modern society somehow emerged, fully formed, from the thorn-encrowned head of Christ! He then almost immediately lapses into a really weird fantasy about Chinese Christians, of all improbable heroes, somehow completing our world conquest! The whole thing has to be read to be believed, but this excerpt is choice.

Then there are the Chinese. Their house church people are planning to launch 100,000 Christian missionaries upon the world. They have developed a narrative about Christianity as a westward moving religion. It got started in Palestine and then moved west to Europe, to America, and to Asia. The destiny of Chinese Christians, they believe, is to bring Christianity westward across Asia and "Back to Jerusalem."

No need to use our noggins in this war! Those "house church people" (whoever the hell they are) will step up to save the day! Leaving aside the fact that the Chinese Christians are hostage to a totalitarian state which is hostile to the United States, pray tell, Mr. Chantrill, where in the Bible did God put forth the principles behind "double-entry bookkeeping, ... self-government, ... rule of law, and ... limited-liability companies?" The many pronouncements against avarice would seem to rule out the alpha and the omega of these, whilst unquestioning obedience to God would seem to rule out self-government. That would leave only "rule of law," wouldn't it. Isn't that what Sharia is?

No religion is capable of giving our civilization the backbone it needs to win this war, and no religion gave us what tactical advantages we now enjoy for that matter. The sooner we realize this, the better.

-- CAV

Blogs, Books, and Music

Welcome Again, Ego Readers!

I see that Martin Lindeskog over at Ego has added me to his blogroll and quoted me at length in a post about new blogs! I'm still fairly new to blogging in general and, partly owing to time constraints, to Objectivist blogging in particular, but Martin's blog is the first blog by another Objectivist I found. Aside from Cox and Forkum (who are also syndicated cartoonists), Ego is the best-known Objectivist blog as far as I can tell. It's because of him that the Charlotte Capitalist, home of the Reason Roundup, first learned about my blog. I'd like to thank him for promoting my blog, for his encouragement, and for his correspondence.

And this reminds me. There are many measures out there of how a blog is doing. These are all attempts to gauge the value others put on your blog by such measures as hyperlinks or traffic. While these provide a first approximation of one part of the success of a blog, they fail by nature in one very important respect: Of what value is the blog to the blogger himself? I've found that I immensely enjoy writing, even on days (like today) that confront me with a blank page and my personal imperative to write something. There's no way for anyone to measure this but the blogger himself. And something else I didn't consider when I began was this: the people I've met in the process. So what if Glenn Reynolds or Michelle Malkin generate small cities in traffic every day? I bet that damn near everyone who emails them is hoping for some kind of a 'lanche. One of the joys of starting out at this enterprise has been the people I've met as a result, through email or comments. I've met more than a dozen people so far, most of them fellow Objectivists. Being solitary by nature, I never thought of that when I decided to blog, so it has been a very pleasant surprise. Perhaps "Mortal Humans" and above on the TTLB Ecosystem should try this: blog anonymously from scratch to see how the other half lives. It's not too bad! Last but not least, several good friends have followed this blog from its start, including the one who gave me the idea of blogging in the first place. So the blog has turned out to be a good way to keep in touch with these friends.

A Trio of Books

I'm going to comment much more briefly on two books -- and more at length on a third -- than I want.

The Evolution of Useful Things

About a month ago, I read a delightful book I received for Christmas from my father-in-law: The Evolution of Useful Things: How Everyday Artifacts-From Forks and Pins to Paper Clips and Zippers-Came to be as They are, by Henry Petroski. If you like technology in general or are merely curious about such questions as, "Why does a fork have four tines -- and not three, or five?" or "How did the paper clip arrive at its current shape?" this is the book for you. This book, written by the man Kirkus Reviews fittingly calls "America's poet laureate of technology," brings back the wonderment of childhood. In engaging prose, Petroski offers lucid explanations for the many design considerations that must go into the many artifacts around us, from the mundane paper clip to the apparently superfluous fish fork. After reading this book, you will realize that you don't live in a mundane world occupied by ordinary things, but in a wonderland of creativity.

Petroski tends to make much of three ideas that I find thought-provoking, if at least somewhat debatable. First, he claims that "form does not follow function," based on the fact that more than one form can serve a given purpose. For a example, forks and chopsticks both are used to pick up food. But this point is somewhat mooted by his second idea: that forms "evolve" to overcome imperfections. (How would they evolve, if not for their forms to follow their functions better?) This second idea has merit in that many daily things have in fact been shaped by countless individuals over time. This idea is well worth considering, especially in today's intellectual environment where many hands -- communicating instantaneously -- make quick work. Just look at such internet-based phenomena as the blogs vs. the established news media, or open source software vs. Microsoft. But lest we discount the role of the individual mind in invention, we can consider Petroski's own example of how the zipper was perfected through the tireless efforts of one man: Otto Frederick Gideon Sundback.

In Sundback's own words, he became fully saturated with the problems of the fastener and he often lay awake half the night "trying to find a way out." He first tackled the C-curity fastener's "trick of popping open" and developed an extension of the eye to enclose the hook completely. (p. 104)

And this was just the beginning of a long road of tinkering, insomnia, and improvement. So, when the works of countless individuals over time (or nearly instantaneously over space with the internet) are considered in aggregate, the process looks like evolution and behaves like it in certain ways. (And something might be gained from studying it in this light.) But we are still observing the fruits of the efforts of numerous individuals making greater or lesser amounts of difference.

Petroski's third idea is that failure drives innovation. This is true if we look only at the immediate steps preceding an invention. Sure. The two-tined fork held meat to be cut better than did a simple knife, which can be said to have failed in certain respects at the task to which it was set (holding meat for cutting). And we can certainly say that a pen drive overcomes many failures of the humble floppy disc. But can't we also say that the floppy disc was a great success in its day? I'm sure that Petroski would hold (and I'd agree) that its weight and size economies addressed the failures of books as media of information storage, and that its ability to be accessed from any point addressed a big failure of magnetic tape. This seems partly a matter of semantics and partly a gripe that there is no "perfect tool" to me. On that second score, there are -- as Petroski points out in a discussion of the "mill economy" and elsewhere -- many design considerations (e.g., cost and aesthetics) besides the explicit purpose of the tool being manufactured. These may make the tool less-than-ideal in the hands of the user. However, if we consider all of this in the context of a capitalist economy, the tool might just be as "perfect" as it can get when such factors as fashion and the willingness of a customer to pay for it are considered. In short, it has many intersecting purposes. A hammer for nails is also a "tool" for making money to its manufacturer and "tool" for saving money for its purchaser. While Petroski does address such concerns, he doesn't take this final step to consider how these concerns are also collateral purposes for the tool. (And thus his first and third points become less compelling.)

This is an incomplete discussion, but should give you an idea of just how richly thought-provoking this book is. Fascinating!

What Went Wrong?

What Went Wrong? : The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East by Bernard Lewis is a must-read in today's world, and maybe not merely in the West. I was given this book by my wife from a list of suggestions I culled from the TIA Daily site. The book provides a fascinating look at the history and culture of the Islamic world as well as its centuries-long decline and the various reactions of the Moslems to that decline. Lewis is a cultural and historical authority, but I found him infuriatingly short on analysis at times. He makes a big point that the Moslem world differs from the West in such things as the status of women, interest in the humanities, and appreciation for Western music, but doesn't go further to explore why this might be. In fact, the book at times seems to be guilty of a bit of cultural relativism. Much of this cultural relativism seems to be a byproduct of an effort to appeal to Moslem readers concerned about their own civilization. But this failure, also partly a symptom of the limited depth of philosophical analysis, leaves it to the reader to come up with his own answer (beyond proximate causes) to the question posed by the book's title!

I still very highly recommend this book.

Shut Up and Sing

Shut up and Sing: How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America, by Laura Ingraham, was to be my next bit of light reading. Great title, lousy book! I thought about getting this over Thanksgiving, but ended up receiving it for Christmas.

You know those contests where people write garbage in imitation of the style of a famous author, as in a "bad Hemingway contest?" This is a sort of "bad Rush Limbaugh." Think of a book with some of the same material that you'd expect out of El Rushbo, but with a lot less of the incisive analysis, a lot more of the package-dealing of religion with valid American values, and a lot less of Rush's way with words (such as it could carry over into a written medium). Here are some samples: (1: analysis) "Elitism is a state of mind, not a way of life. It is first and foremost a cult of the self." (p. 4), (2: package dealing) [The "elite's"] real problem with religion is that it teaches objective truth -- that God exists. (p. 5), and (3: not have way with words) [T]hey are superior to We [sic] the People [sic]. ... They are way ahead of us in the evolutionary scheme of things -- not mere earthlings, but more like the inhabitants of some super-enlightened planet discovered by the crew of the Starship Enterprise. (p. 1)

In fairness, and in the hope that I don't own a wholly worthless book, I plan to scan ahead to see whether there might be some actual reporting on what these mysterious "elites" are up to. (It looks like there is.) I've found other disappointing books by conservative authors to have this redeeming value. But I just can't read this! The prose alone is nearly impossible for me to read, being a smelly compound of blatant populism and poor style. Or maybe I'll read just about anything else from this list....

As Laura Ingraham says on the first page, "And without a doubt, they will think this book is stupid." I am they, unless I get back to you later to report otherwise. And I hope our nation is not so far gone that simple literacy marks one as a member of the "elite."

Music

My musical explorations have been badly curtailed for quite some time until my birthday recently, when I got a CD player installed in my car. So far, I've been listening to some old favorites, mostly ska and reggae, but have also been listening to some blues compilation albums. I have quite the backlog of CDs that, thanks to my thesis and then my current job, I've either not listened to very much, or at all. A few are gifts from my wife and many are from my good friend (and occasional comment-bomber) Adrian Hester, whose musical taste is impeccable. (As is his satire.) I'm looking forward to spinning these CDs in the next few weeks. It's late, so I'll name just a few of the artists I'm looking forward to enjoying: James Brown, Lightnin' Hopkins , The Toasters, Fats Waller, Yeska, Patricia Barber, Duke Ellington (with Charles Mingus and Max Roach), and Abbey Lincoln.

-- CAV

Updates

2-17-05: Corrected two typos.

2-19-05: Added link to later comments on Ingraham's book.

6-21-06: Added hypertext anchor.

Google Turns up Dollars for Dems

I recently made a half-joking, half-serious post on whether Google might be a couple of karats short of being the gold standard for internet search engines when politics entered the picture. Both the part about Google Maps turning up Bush 43 for "liar near Washington D.C." and the part about two major conservative blogs being denied listings in Google News reminded me of something I thought I'd heard. I recalled (possibly incorrectly) that both Google founders were big Democrat donors, but couldn't turn anything up about that. (But I was googling for it! Nevertheless, I found nothing on that via Yahoo!, either.)

But via Matt Drudge comes a story about how the employees of said firm are cash cows for the Democrats. From the story: "Employees of U.S.-based search engine Google gave $207,650 to federal candidates for the 2004 elections -- virtually all of it to Democrats." Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

-- CAV

The Bad Guys Get It. When Will We?

Very quick post today! Else the doghouse for me! And here's wishing my readers a great Valentine's Day!

There is quite a bit is in the blogosphere about the war today, but one post in particular ties in well with my recent viewing of the Ayn Rand biopic. Ayn Rand stressed throughout her intellectual life the paramount importance of ideas, and she stressed that we could understand history better with this insight. Ideas move history, and especially today. Sadly, it appears to be the case that it is mainly the Islamofascists who understand this. In a post whose title reminds me of a similar piece with a similar title by Rand, Daniel Pipes offers advice to those of us who are concerned with terrorism. It's worth a read, and it was partly with his third point in mind that I began this blog. But note which side best understands the role of ideas at present.

[T]o put it more starkly, Rita Katz of the SITE Institute says in the current issue of Newsweek, "Almost every [Islamist] Web site has a section on how to do jihad over the Internet" and these advise would-be holy warriors: "If you can't do jihad physically, do it on the Internet." The same applies to counterterrorists. [bold added]

I once pointed out that the Islamofascists openly stated what many in the West deny: that they philosphically oppose freedom. They also are right on this count: it will take more than bombs to win this war. The boldface above should be a call to arms for the West as well as the Islamofascists.

And not only do the Islamofascists oppose freedom. The book they take literally incites them to bloodshed. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is ready to collect on a million dollar prize. The whole thing is eye-opening, but here's a sample.

Below you will find Qur'anic references condoning a religious war, or jihad. Please send me one million dollars as per this statement from "Muslims seek tolerance" in NorthJersey.com (thanks to Susan):

Jamal Badawi, an economics professor and Muslim scholar, said the community has suffered from the media's portrayal of the Muslim holy book, the Quran, and in particular the suggestion that it condones a religious war, or jihad. He dismissed the idea, and jokingly offered $1 million to anyone who could find it in the Quran.

Here are the Qur'an quotes:

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (2:190-191)

Slay the disbelievers. Sounds like a religious war to me.

Sadly, while many of us on the internet might have noticed the huge and growing mound of evidence that Islamofascism poses a grave danger, our governments remain behind the behind the times, and crippled with multiculturalism. For example, consider what Daniel Pipes points out about our federal Bureau of Prisons.

Many branches of government need to understand Islam, but probably none deal with Muslims and their religious practices in so practical and detailed a way as do the wardens of prisons. It is therefore particularly dismaying to see that the highest prison authority in the United States, the Bureau of Prisons (which oversees all federal correctional facilities), has bought the Islamist line.

So, if our law enforcement, which have been compromised already, actually catch someone, our jailers won't take their beliefs too seriously. But this is nothing. In many cases, our governments are doing anything not to get in the way of these fanatics and their allies. In Great Britain, for example, comparative religion courses that deal with Islam now have the requirement that Mohammed's names be blessed any time it is written in coursework! Via LGF:

The potential problem has arisen in teaching about Muhammad. The exam board requires that every time Muhammad is written, the letters “pbuh” in parentheses be placed after it. This is shorthand for “peace be upon him”. The writer therefore prays a blessing upon him everytime [sic] his name is written, as is the custom of Muslims. So I have to tell my students (over and over if there is any hope of them remembering) that they must bless Muhammad every time they mention his name.

[Update (2-15-05): LGF corrects this. As it turns out, "OCR will always put ‘peace be upon him’ after Muhammad in the form of an Arabic colophon as a mark of respect. However we do not expect candidates to do this." So we still have a government agency paying obeisance to Mohammed. This is still way out of bounds.]

And remember, there's "anti-hate" legislation being considered there that might make it easy for people to get into trouble for "vilifying" Islam. (As if the Koran doesn't do that on its own. See above.) From the Christian News:

Some British opponents of the bill have pointed to a situation in Australia's state of Victoria, where similar legislation in place there has resulted in two Christian pastors being found guilty of vilifying Islam.

The controversial case arose from a post-9/11 seminar at which Muslim beliefs, scriptures and strategies were examined for a Christian audience.

And note that Australia's already sinking into the abyss. They're not the only ones. Mark Steyn has a chilling column out on how the West is in the main lacking in what he calls "war will." (I've complained many times that Americans are not angry enough about the September 11, 2001 atrocities.) From his article:

I'm not worried about Iraq. As they demonstrated on Jan. 30, they'll be just fine. The western front is the important one in this war, the point of intersection between Islam and a liberal democratic tradition so mired in self-loathing it would rather destroy our civilization just to demonstrate its multicultural bona fides. It's not that young Eden knows nothing, but that neither his teachers, judges nor furniture showroom proprietors do. By contrast, our enemies know us very well, at least when it comes to courtroom strategies and canny manipulation of the fetish of "tolerance."

A big step in the right direction would be for the West, as a whole, to remember that "tolerance" is a political, not a moral, virtue.

On Valentine's Day, we celebrate love. But if we don't protect what we love, we lose what we love.

-- CAV

Updates

2-15-05: Corrected MARK Steyn's first name. Added link to LGF update and comment.

Reason Roundup 13

Lots of good stuff is referenced in this week's Reason Roundup at the Charlotte Capitalist. Check it out.

-- CAV

Review of Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life

I finally saw Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life Friday night. After a frustrating and long day in the lab (which didn't end until close to 9:00 p.m.) and with my wife being out of town for a departmental retreat, I really needed an emotional lift. I have to admit that I didn't quite feel like watching this movie at the time. But I must have known on a subconscious level that this movie would do the trick: I watched it anyway. I have not been so inspired by heroism since Apollo 13, or so moved by greatness in the face of adversity since La Vita è Bella (Life Is Beautiful). This is easily the best documentary I have ever seen, and one of the best movies. I strongly recommend it to anyone, whether or not they are already familiar with the novelist-philosopher or her work. I traditionally grade movies I review here, but feel silly doing so in this case. See it. Yesterday.

How can I say this? Because making a film about a figure like Ayn Rand poses a much greater challenge than most biographical films and Michael Paxton proved more than equal to the task. Given that Ayn Rand was a woman of ideas, it would have been absurd to attempt to make this film without discussing some of these ideas. But to dwell too much on these ideas could have easily resulted in the film becoming pedantic, and disappointing to an audience interested in learning more about the life of Ayn Rand than just her philosophy or her fictional works. Paxton not only struck just the right balance in his approach to the life and the ideas of Ayn Rand, he masterfully illustrated how well-integrated with her life -- both in origin and application -- these ideas were. As a result, the movie manages to illustrate Ayn Rand's ideas with her life while simultaneously employing these ideas to explain why Rand was great. This might sound like circular reasoning, but in fact, Paxton is helping his audience reason inductively about Rand's ideas during the narrative. This is an ingenious application of what is known as the "spiral theory of learning."

For example, Ayn Rand was a champion of individualism, yet she hailed from Russia at the time of the Communist revolution. We see how Rand was able to essentialize the chaos of those times to see that the Communists were waging war against the individual -- and thus why she grew to hate Communism in particular and collectivism in general. We see further that Rand was able to learn from Western literature and cinema that life in general did not have to be the way it was in Russia. Exposed to two contrasting visions of life for man on this earth -- the Communist hell she lived in and the life of the West she learned about from fiction -- she was able to abstract the essential differences between the two. One of these differences is that man has a choice to drift submissively, and live or die at the mercy of those around him -- or to be purposeful, independent, and heroic. Ayn Rand chose the latter. In doing so, she did all of the following, each of which is amazing in itself: she saw this difference, she chose to live her life as she saw fit, she escaped from the mass graveyard of Soviet Russia, she became a success -- in her chosen profession, in a foreign language, and starting from scratch -- in her adopted country, and she created an entire philosophy to do all of these things.

Seeing this movie was a moving, uplifting experience for me. It is a testament to her intellectual and artistic success that the phrase "like a hero from an Ayn Rand novel" is something of a cliche. But to do the things she did in her life, she had to be just such a heroine. Ayn Rand's many detractors would like you to forget that this was the reason Rand was able to create the fiction that she did. I'm not sure exactly why, but I have a few guesses. Maybe they gave up on their dreams long ago, and so have to pretend that someone like Ayn Rand never existed. Maybe they realize that her life provides an example of the validity of her own philosophy. Whatever their motives are, Rand's detractors invariably focus, not on her actual ideas (And see this post for just one example of how poorly many grasp her ideas.), but on her affair with Nathaniel Branden. This bears out the notion that for whatever reason, they feel that they have to find something they can hold out as evidence that Rand wasn't perfect. But what man would have been her equal romantically? It is clear from the documentary that if there was a tragedy in Rand's life, it was that she was unable to find in one man all the qualities her great soul required. Her detractors gleefully damn her for having an affair, but I have never seen a single solitary one say what he would have done in her shoes. I don't know what I would have done, either, but I don't share the apparent relief of Rand's detractors that something went badly for her. I'm too moved by what she accomplished and by what she had to be to accomplish it.

I brought up, as just one example of Rand's brilliance, her integration that Communism was at war with the individual. She understood this on many levels: ideological, existential, historical, and spiritual. I don't know how to do this example justice, let alone an entire life of such examples. You'll have to ask Michael Paxton how to do that. Better still, see the movie.

-- CAV

Updates

2-16-05: Added hyperlink to the movie's web site. Hat tip to Martin Lindeskog.