Another Unwelcome Amendment

Please be sure to read all three Notes at the end of this post.

The religious right is hell bent on slipping in state-sponsored religion any way they can. Two different strategies were proposed today, both revealing in that they ignore the proper role of the government as the protector of individual rights.

First, there appears to be is (See Note 2 below.) a move afoot (Old article: See Note 1 below.) to propose a constitutional amendment to "guarantee equal treatment for religious speakers, groups, and ideas in the public sphere," as if freedom of speech is not enough. The alleged need for this amendment arises from the fact that our government is forbidden to establish a state religion and yet it is heavily involved in education. This involvement in education necessarily involves the government in propagating ideology, leading to all manner of ideas being promoted in the public schools, except, hold proponents, the Christian religion. (See also Ann Coulter, below.)

First, when private persons (including students in public schools) are permitted to engage in speech reflecting a secular viewpoint, then speech reflecting a religious viewpoint should be permitted on the same basis. [Obviously, this is a way to get religion taught at taxpayer expense. --ed]

Second, when the government provides benefits to private activities, such as charitable work, health care, education, or art, there should be no discrimination or exclusion on the basis of religious expression, character, or motivation. Religious citizens should not be required to engage in self-censorship as a precondition to participation in public programs. (This idea was incorporated in the Senate welfare reform bill.)

This author is more concerned with getting a slice of the government funding pie to teach his religious views than with "equal treatment." Otherwise, he would advocate abolition of public education on the grounds that it takes money from some taxpayers to promote ideas they oppose. In other words, the religionists would "leverage" one form of government interference, public education, to get another, government-funded religious instruction.

Failing that, Ann Coulter has suggested a new, ingenious perversion of the concept of states' rights. After providing a long laundry list of ideas funded by taxation (which is worth a look.), Ann Coulter proposes -- not an end to government interference in the marketplace of ideas -- but the misuse of states' rights to establish, I suppose, 50 state religions!

I don't want to hear any jabberwocky from the Court TV amateurs about "the establishment of religion." (1) A Ten Commandments monument does not establish a religion. (2) The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law "respecting" an establishment of religion -- meaning Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting the states from establishing a religion. [bold added]

Really! Well! Let's examine the rest of the First Amendment and see what else that maverick of constitutional law, Ann Coulter, also implies that the various states can do away with.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So I guess Coulter would also say, "Congress cannot make a law prohibiting states from abridging freedom of speech, or of the press, ...." While she might be correct (Or not: See Note 3.) in a very legalistic sense, all 50 states would have to enact such legislation at once, thanks to that pesky first clause of Article IV, Section 2: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Leaving aside the fact that individual rights are not granted by the Constitution anyway, it would be obvious to anyone but Coulter that the Tenth Amendment is not intended to provide a way to subvert federal law, but to allow states to handle local matters not worthy of attention at the federal level and not contrary to the obvious purpose of the rest of the Constitution.

Furthermore, recall what I noted about the supposed enthusiasm for states' rights on the part of the religious right we saw during the Schiavo fiasco.

The religious right don't give a damn about states' rights (or individual rights for that matter). Interestingly, the fact that they so quickly jettisoned their enthusiasm for the concept in the Schiavo case reveals why they were so enthusiastic about it in the first place! [i.e., The concept of states' rights gives them a way to sneak their agenda in when they can't do it at the federal level as Coulter demonstrates here. --ed]

Ann Coulter, I believe, had suddenly become a big fan, first of the federal government running over Florida's rights as a state, and then of the rule of men and not laws during that time. (Quoting from TIA Daily reference.)

Coulter approvingly quotes this declaration of lawlessness from one of America's worst presidents:

"President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said of a Supreme Court ruling he opposed: 'Well, John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.' The court's ruling was ignored. And yet, somehow, the republic survived."

So much for Ann Coulter's high regard for the Constitution. If she'll junk it in an "emergency," I somehow doubt that she's above twisting it for less time-sensitive puposes, like the establishment of fifty theocracies. Someone who approves Jacksonian despotism is contemptuous of individual rights.

Does Ann Coulter really want a state religion, or fifty of them? Does the author of the first article, Michael McConnell? Are they ignorant of the implications of religion being above the law or just hoping everyone else remains so until it is too late?

-- CAV

Note 1: I missed this yesterday, but the article is a decade old. Interestingly, it was indexed (This link should soon move.) by RealClear Politics yesterday evening. I take this to be evidence of renewed interest in the idea.

Note 2: Via TIA Daily is a July 1 story in the New York Times about the introduction of just such an amendment. (On the bright side, this also reports an effort to limit eminent domain.)

Earlier in the day, Representative Ernest Istook, Republican of Oklahoma, stood on the Supreme Court steps to announce a constitutional amendment, backed by 109 House members, including 5 Democrats, that would protect references to God on public property.

"This amendment will protect displays of the Ten Commandments, in Kentucky as well as in Texas," Mr. Istook said in a prepared statement. "It will protect the words 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. It will protect the ability for schoolchildren to pray at school, individually or together. It will protect our national motto of 'In God we trust.' "

I wish our lawmakers would worry less about making Christianity the state religion and more about protecting individual rights.

Note 3: Reader Adrian Hester notes that my Constitutional argument against Ann Coulter is wrong and provides a far better one. Quoting his comment in part, and linking to the 14th Amendment:

More generally, and this is where her argument falls flat on its face, Congress has been allowed by the courts (under the authority given it in Article IV, Section 1 to "prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof") to regulate matters notionally under the clause if they're matters of public policy. (Banning polygamy in Utah fell under this, I think, despite Mormons' arguments for religious freedom, and when the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional in 1967, it did so on the grounds that the 14th Amendment trumped states' rights to regulate marriage as they saw fit, and thus implicitly the Full Faith and Credit clause.) Despite Coulter's hair-splitting, I'm sure any state that enacted a state religion would have it struck down on the same grounds--if the 14th Amendment is a matter of public policy exempt from the Full Faith and Credit clause, then surely the 1st Amendment is too.

My thanks to Adrian Hester for taking the time to leave his comment on this.

Crossposted to the Egosphere

Updates

July 1, 2005: (1) Added Note 1. (2) Added news link and excerpt as Note 2. (3) Took question mark out of title. Gotta love the religious right....
July 3, 2005: Added Note 3 and prefatory remark.

Strong Evidence against Italian Imam

Nearly a week ago, an Italian judge ordered the arrest of 13 American intelligence agents for "kidnapping" an Imam as part of an "extraordinary rendition" operation to send him to Egypt.

Today, Newsweek reports that there was good evidence that the imam was involved in terrorism and that at least part of the Italian government had given the CIA the go-ahead to perform the snatch-and-grab.

A radical imam allegedly abducted by CIA agents in Italy shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq was identified as a key figure in a jihadi network supplying foreign fighters for Ansar Al-Islam -- a terror group that the Bush administration was then seeking to link to Saddam HusseinÂ’s government, according to Italian court records.

...

[C]ourt records in the case show that the Italian police had assembled a large mass of evidence tying Abu Omar to Ansar Al-Islam, the Al Qaeda-linked group based in the Kurdish region in northern Iraq. Administration officials say Ansar was being protected by Saddam and run by lieutenants of the notorious terrorist Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi.

The article goes on to mention that the agents used easily-traceable cell phones, indicating that they were probably working with at least some element of the Italian government.

I recall reading in the Houston Chronicle last Saturday that it is not unusual for the Italian judiciary to act extremely independently of other parts of the government.

-- CAV

China Sweeps "Internal Affairs" Under Rug

Yesterday brought two interesting pieces of news about China.

First, there were more reports of rioting there.

Thousands of Chinese rioted in a dispute sparked by a lopsided roadside brawl, set fire to cars and wounded six police officers in an outburst likely to worry communist leaders in Beijing desperate to cling on to power.

The official Xinhua news agency, in a rare report on a local disturbance, blamed Sunday's riot in Chizhou in dirt-poor eastern Anhui province on a few criminals who led the "unwitting masses" astray.

The violence was the latest in a series of protests which the Communist Party, in power since 1949, fears could spin out of control and become a channel for anger over corruption and a growing gap between rich and poor. [Note that the second reason for the rioting is, um, a bit Marxist! -- ed]

As I have noted here recently, rioting like this is frequent in China and is often sparked by such things as the government acting in a way that five of our Supreme Court justices would approve of.

Ironically, that very same repressive government sees fit to lecture the United States on the virtues of the government not interfering in the economy -- on the very same day the rioting occurred and when speaking about a firm 70% owned by the Chinese government!

Quoting Matt Drudge:

China expressed opposition to interference in a government-controlled oil company's bid for the U.S.-based oil company Unocal, state media said Wednesday.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said that China National Offshore Oil Corporation's $18.5 billion offer for Unocal was "normal commercial activity between enterprises."

Liu said "economic cooperation between China and the U.S. serves the interests of both sides and commercial activities should not be interfered in or disturbed by political elements."

There are growing concerns in Washington over the deal as some U.S. officials are uncomfortable with CNOOC, 70 percent owned by the Chinese government, controlling a major player in the U.S. energy sector.

Xinhua reported Wednesday that CNOOC Chief Executive Fu Chengyu is heading to the United States for negotiations and to dispel concerns over the deal.

First off, isn't China always telling everyone else to keep its nose out of its "internal affairs?" Then they should butt out of ours. And second, perhaps if China wanted everyone else to stay out of its "internal affairs," it could mind them better itself.

The blatant hypocrisy of the Chinese government is truly amazing to behold. I hear you can even see it from outer space.

-- CAV

I wasn't the only one ...

... to suffer cognitive whiplash from the abruptness with which the FEC Commissioner contradicted herself!

Online politicking should not be subject to onerous federal rules, Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said. "We're all agreed about that." But, Weintraub added, "What is the best way for us to regulate bloggers?" [bold added]

This article, and, I am sure, the hearing it describes, are the kind of tiresome lunacy brought on when government force is arbitrarily unleashed against noncriminal activity. Nothing of any real substance -- like repealing all government regulation of political campaigns -- is discussed. That premise has been accepted and the whole thing is all about quibbling over such nitpicking points as: (1) Whether the FEC will wave the magic wand to make bloggers journalists, meaning "granted an exemption from campaign finance laws." (2) What dollar limit should there be on the expense of maintaining a blog for a federal candidate? And (3) Whether the internet could be treated like radio for the purposes of the FEC.

In other words, attending that hearing would be like being transported into some horrific, primacy-of-consciousness universe where bureaucratic whim trumps reality. You'd have to pray to the gods of the FEC to be reincarnated as a journalist or a radio host to live a freer life. (And then, in the latter case, hope that you weren't "reincarnated" at the same time as the Fairness Doctrine.) Your ability to act would depend, perhaps, on how well you prayed and, for certain, on the uncertain whims of the gods.

Except that the experience would, sadly, only be a concretization of the way things basically are now for bloggers, thanks to McCain, to Feingold, and, most of all, to everyone who decided to let checks and balances protect freedom rather than being men and protecting freedom themselves. Yes, Mr. President. I'm talking to you, at least while Ellen Weintraub lets me. Practice saying the manly Latin verb, "Veto!" a bit. Say it in Church-Latin for all I care. It means "I forbid." Use it some time.

Sadly, until McCain-Feingold is repealed outright, somebody will have to attend these meetings on behalf of bloggers in order to beg for whatever scraps of freedom the FEC will deign to give. My head throbs for those guys.

And if that isn't depressing enough, Instapundit points to a morbidly interesting discussion over at Red State about some possible implications of FEC regulation of blogging. Namely, how the regulations could affect people who blog using time at work or computer facilities at their place of employment. The whole thing is a good heads-up and should be read in all its gory detail if this describes your blogging habits even remotely. I'll put up a few samples here, with numbers added. Note that these comments come from a variety of people, some of whom may favor thse laws.

# 1. ...[I]f the blogger falls outside the safe harbor provision and a complaint is filed against the blogger, the burden will be on the blogger to show that (1) he was not prevented "from completing the normal amount of work" that he usually does during business hours and (2) will still most likely have to prove that his employer was not being lenient, which could get the business into trouble if it is a corporation.

For the blogger to answer this complaint, the blogger would need money to hire a lawyer. The blogger would probably also need a source of funds because his company would most likely fire him in an effort to show the company had no culpability for the blogger's actions.

# 2. Consider a professor at a private university, which is incorporated. He's at his desk all the time, often working on his work but often blogging about politics -- which his school encourages because it brings prestige and attention. Problematic? Under the law, maybe.

# 3. Corporations are barred from making expenditures on behalf of candidates through their general proceeds. So they shouldn't be able to circumvent those rules by encouraging their employees to use corporate resources (the phone bank, the xerox, the computers) to help preferred candidates, be it letting someone run off 10,000 copies of a pro-Bush flier or playing someone 80K/yr just to blog in favor of John Kerry.

# 4. Because in order to really enforce this, more organizations are going to have to start filtering traffic at the corporate firewall on Port 80. My guess is that rather than overburdening their already overstretched IT departments, they will simply say: "No internet weblog activity using work computers is allowed, period." Most employees will get the message and blogging will disappear from the workplace, even if it falls within the safe-harbor exemptions provided by the FEC. Employers aren't going to take the risk. What they will do is crack down with an iron fist

#5. I blog almost exclusively from work. Why? Because I have no work to do and I work in a service industry where all my hours are billed to one client regardless of the amount of work I actually do. And if I don't blog to fill up my time I am going to go slowly insane as my mind deteriorates from sheer boredom. (Doing nothing for 30 hours a week is a mental hazard.) I can't imagine that I am the only blogger who does this.

But my company has absolutely nothing to do with what I post on my blog except for the occasional diatribe about what a dumbass my boss is. (No names of course) So why should I be penalized for having nothing better to do with my time than argue about politics at work? Because somebody somewhere is paranoid that I might disagree with them and that someone else might agree with me.

And now I'm going to go home.

Whoever said, "Controls breed controls," was guilty of an enormous understatement.

-- CAV

Crossposted to the Egosphere

At Least Say "Thanks!"

Via TIA Daily, I learned of an internet clearinghouse for those of us who wish to express our thanks, in word or deed, to the members of our armed forces. Theirs is a difficult and dangerous task, which I could describe with any number of other unpleasant adjectives. One that doesn't belong in this list is "thankless."

Stop by. Leave a message. Browse around. Under "Here's how you can help" is an entire page of links to organizations already set up to help the troops for those who are inclined to show their gratitude by volunteering or giving gifts.

-- CAV

Hitchens Slaps Moore Around

I've noticed a whole raft of polls lately showing that (surprise!) the American people overwhelmingly oppose the draft.

Why?

No. Not, "Why do we oppose the draft?" This is a nation of free men and the right to one's own life is the most fundamental of all. What I was wondering is, "Why are all these polls cropping up?"

Yes. There have been stories about the armed forces failing (e.g., link above) to meet enlistment goals. So Congress must be getting ready to do something about it, right?

Well, not unless you count Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) quietly reviving the draft legislation he sponsored in pre-election demagoguery last year before voting, with the Republicans, against it. This year, he wishes to use the draft to "correct" the fact that "the burdens of the war disproportionately have fallen on the poor and minorities" in our all-volunteer forces. Or not unless you consider that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) recently said that "'We're going to have to face that question,' ... on an NBC television show when asked if it was realistic to expect restoration of the draft."

I so far have heard nothing about the draft from the other side of the aisle or from the White House. (Except to say that we won't have one.) This talk of a draft is more of the anti-war drumbeat from the left. Democrat politicians serve it up as a topic of discussion (and something to benefit from should it actually be instituted) and the media dutifully blather endlessly about it with the implication that our administration wants it. The polls predictably show that we Americans don't want a draft and this fact will eventually be contorted until it is somehow taken to indicate a groundswell of Democrat support among the electorate. Only the authors of that propaganda, the left, will believe it.... And we will still have no draft.

But I'm really just talking about the anti-war drumbeat, and on that subject, Christopher Hitchens does a great job dismantling that hackneyed leftist canard about those who have no children in the fighting being unqualified to speak about the war. He makes a few great points. I'll put down a couple here.

These aren't children. They're adults. So let's quit infantilizing them.

But when it comes to the confrontation in Iraq, the whole notion of grown-ups volunteering is dismissed or lampooned. Instead, it's people's children getting "sent." Recall Michael Moore asking congressmen whether they would "send" one of their offspring, as if they had the power to do so, or the right? (John Ashcroft's son was in the Gulf, but I doubt that his father dispatched him there, and in any case it would take a lot more than this to reconcile me to Ashcroft, as Moore implies that it should.) Nobody has to join the armed forces, and those who do are old enough to vote, get married, and do almost everything legal except buy themselves a drink. Why infantilize young people who are entitled to every presumption of adulthood?

Interestingly, it is the Democrats, in their fervent desire to reinstate the draft, who would abrogate by military draft that great right of adulthood: Choosing one's own destiny. I see the infantilization and the willingness to run roughshod over the rights of adults as two sides of the same paternalistic coin. So they damn Bush for "sending" adult volunteers into war, and yet they propose drafting people into the military! The differences between the two? (1) Bush is doing one, automatically making it a sin. (2) The state doesn't have a say in who volunteers for the military. Gotta fix that!

And, in a point I've never heard articulated, the "only if you have a child" argument also undermines the idea of civilian control of the military. Hitchens drives this home beautifully, but not before first exploring the implications and history of heads of state practicing what the Democrats preach.

Further on in the same portentous article, we encounter one Andrew Bacevich, a "professor of international relations at Boston University and a retired Army officer." What could be more impressive? This expert delivers himself of the opinion that, "If this is such a great cause, let us see one of the Bush daughters in uniform." Let me do a brief thought experiment here. Do I know a single anti-war person who would be more persuaded if one of the Bush girls joined up? Do you? Can you imagine what would be said about such a cheap emotional stunt? Stalin's son was taken prisoner by the Nazi invaders (and never exchanged), and Mao's son was killed in the war that established the present state of North Korea. I am not sure how encouraging such precedents are supposed to be, but they have nothing at all to do with the definition of a just war.

Much more important than this, however, is the implied assault on civilian control of the military. In this republic, elected civilians give crisp orders to soldiers and expect these orders to be obeyed. No back chat can even be imagined, let alone allowed. Do liberals really want the Joint Chiefs to say: "Mr. President, I'll respect that order when you have a son or daughter in uniform"? [Actually, they do. Anything to undermine authority, especially legitimate authority. -- ed] It was a great day when President Lincoln fired Gen. George B. McClellan.* It was a great day when President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur. No presidential brat needed to be on the front line for this point to be understood.

Once again, the words of Hitchens are a breath of fresh air.

-- CAV

Updates

7-5-05: Removed a formatting glitch.

My Kind of Hotel

Please read the PS after this entry. Our "white knight" may not exactly be what he seems.

This is racing around the internet like wildfire. I've seen it already just making cursory visits to Chapomatic and d'Anconia Online.

A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Cafe" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. [links and minor correction added]

Amazingly, I find myself salivating at the prospect of a city council using "eminent domain on steroids."

My wife has relatives in New Hampshire. If this gets built, I'm staying in it no matter how much it costs. I need a new copy of Atlas Shrugged anyway!

Of course, I'm hoping a Supreme Court reversal interferes with that bit of poetic justice. I'm a much bigger fan of the real kind.

Thank you, Mr. Clements, and I hope we'll see Mr. Souter in court! Believe it or not, if that happens, I'll be rooting for Mr. Souter should his case wend its way to the Supreme Court. (And now that I think of it, wouldn't he have to recuse himself? Any legal experts out there?)

-- CAV

PS: Thanks to Martin Lindeskog, I now know that the mysterious Logan Darrow Clements in this story is a Libertarian. According to an entry in Nicholas Provenzo's blog, Rule of Reason, Clements ran in California's recall election for governor in order to, in his words, "spread Objectivist ideas in the mass media." As both Provenzo and another blogger, Noumenalself, point out, this kind of grandstanding is ultimately futile. As Noumenalself put it:

Running as an Objectivist in an election like that was worse than futile because it probably damaged Objectivism's public image far more than it succeeded in plugging Atlas Shrugged. Suppose you knew nothing about Ayn Rand or Objectivism. Now you find out that there is some Ayn Rand guy running in an election along with Schwarzenegger, Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt, a porn star, and a guy in a clown suit. What do you think you'll conclude about Objectivism?

This blog entry goes on to mention Clements's associations with Kelleyite pseudo-Objectivists.

So what does this have to do with Clements's current actions? Or should I say, "antics?" This is precisely the problem. All this might be merely ... antics purportedly done to "spread Objectivist ideas," but resulting in their being discredited instead.

What Clements proposes to do is exactly the kind of thing (not that it had to be the property of Justice Souter) that needed to be done: Provoke a test case to try getting this horrendous decision overturned. But is this really what Clements is doing, or is this just his chance to make a "splash" for Objectivism? Only time will tell.

In addition to possibly damaging the credibility of Objectivism, what if Clements fails to follow through? Perhaps someone else had been thinking, seriously, of doing the same thing and backed down upon hearing about Clements's plan. This person would not necessarily decide to do the "heavy lifting" with Clements out of the picture and even if he did, however much time it took for Clements's publicity stunt to reach its denouement would have been lost.

Time will tell, but the precedents are not good, based on Clements's past behavior and associations.

PPS. There has been quite a bit of further discussion on this over at d'Anconia Online and at Noodle Food. Furthermore, Tracinski at TIA Daily refers to this as a "brilliantly conceived public relations stunt," which it is. The question remains: "Publicity for what?" Clements is obviously motivated to promote his television show and whatever it is he regards as "Objectivism." As the commenter bbrown below points out, Clements probably does not have legal standing to sue, which backs up my contention that he is not really interested in trying to challenge the Kelo decision in court. But Clements, as bbrown also points out, is probably superfluous in that way: Other eminent domain cases are already in the works. There will be other opportunities for Kelo to be challenged.

So what's my "final answer," to use a moldy pop-cultural allusion? Clements is committing the same wrong as he did when he ran for governor in that he tries to use a publicity stunt to spread ideas. My condemnation of him for slowing down the eventual challenge to the decision is wrong, based as it was on my incorrect assumption that there weren't already other similar cases in the courts. As far as his effect on whether legislation for reform of eminent domain occurs, I regard that as negligible on further thought. Americans were up in arms over this decision without his goading us on and we won't need him to goad us on further. He may, in spite of himself, succeed in gaining some favorable publicity for Ayn Rand, given the emphasis on Atlas Shrugged in the stories about his stunt in the MSM, which will not directly mention his other associations in much detail. The issue he has chosen to grandstand on is so clear-cut that what, if anything, he has to say about it will likely be ignored as most Americans laugh at the big joke he has made at Justice Souter's expense. He'll make a big splash, maybe a few people will buy Atlas Shrugged, and a maybe few people will conclude that Objectivists are kooks after perusing his web site. But he'll otherwise be forgotten, and so much the better.

I'll concede that it's a brilliant stunt, but it will make little difference in the long run. Too bad a kook came up with it.

Updates

Today: Added prefatory comments in italics above the entry and a PS.
6-30-05: Corrected a name. Added a PPS.

Ayn Rand Gets (Some) Free Publicity

Blair over at Secular Foxhole is unhappy with two articles he encountered recently which both smear Ayn Rand. While I'm not happy to see Ayn Rand get smeared either, I take the long view and ask whether such attempts actually succeed.

I say that he's only half-right to be unhappy. Both articles did so poorly in the business of smearing Rand that I would urge him to take heart. Neither article will carry any weight whatsoever with anyone outside the narrow ideological confines of the audience for which it was written. The second is the more "successful" in smearing Rand, but this is only by accident: That author was aided by David Kelley and his pals in the Libertarian Party.

Consider the first article, which takes the form of a mock advice column and appears in a publication whose liberal slant is so over-the-top that nobody to the right of Noam Chomsky is going to be able to bear reading it for more than a paragraph or so. The first paragraph alone will tell anyone with a modicum of common sense that this is a publication with nothing of any substance (or humor, for that matter) to offer.

Rand['s] Objectivist credo made a virtue of selfishness and [her] fiction fawned over powerful "Individualists[sic]" like architects, capitalists, war-mongers, defense contractors, Joint Chiefs of Staff, flyboys with codpieces, white collar criminals and other cheery human-monsters bearing resemblances to Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

Why are architects, a harmless breed from what I can tell, being lumped together with criminals and war-mongers? This fails to be funny because the grouping neither makes sense nor artful nonsense. What's intrinsically wrong with a defense contractor? "Cheery human-monsters?" This is too mean-spirited and stupid to be funny. Anyone who can bear reading past this first irritating, insulting paragraph is beyond hope anyway. (I forced myself to and got treated to something that made me wonder for a moment whether Aristophanes was the genius behind Beavis and Butthead.) The chances are that if the members of this audience have ever heard of Ayn Rand at all, they already hate her. Anybody else might be made curious about or reminded of Ayn Rand and, as a result, might read or re-read one of her works. Or end up at the Ayn Rand Institute's web site.

The biggest laugh from this piece comes from the realization that its author has not only failed to be funny, but has probably aided the cause of someone he so clearly despises.

Of course, it is not just the mindless, nihilistic left who attack Rand. The religious right can't stand her either. The left is today at an intellectual dead end. People who want and appreciate the value of ethical guidance aren't going to turn to an ideology whose ethics is best summed up in the phrase, "Whatever waxes your lance, man." Unfortunately, the only alternative that people are widely aware of to the nihilism or self-indulgence offered by the left is religion. As a result, attacks from the religionists will often carry more weight because they are usually arguing from some systematic ideology.

But I said, "Often." The second article (by one Rev. Mike Macdonald) cited by Blair is, fortunately, not that "good:" The weakness of the religious viewpoint, epistemology, is far too obvious here. Consider two passages that occur just five very short paragraphs apart.

(1) Objectivists reject the idea that anything called the "common good" exists. Though claiming to be totally rational and objective, the philosophy is based on faith in a proposition that contradicts the empirical evidence.

(2) Those of us who believe God reveals his will to humanity through the Bible also believe that all of our humanity has been marred by sin, including our rationality. It's not for nothing that "rationalize" means "to devise superficially rational, or plausible, explanations or excuses for one's acts, usually without being aware that these are not the real motives." Objectivism rationalizes the choice to be selfish. [italics and numerals added]

Well. Either faith is a means of knowledge or it isn't. If it is, how the hell can this minister complain about what he feels (incorrectly) is the Objectivist reliance on faith? If it isn't, then why should we listen to him at all, given that he "buttresses" his position with faith in the Bible? Indeed, if faith is a means of knowledge, why is he crafting this argument at all? If "God reveals his will to humanity through the Bible," what truth is there to be found in this man's profane scribblings? Anyone reading this piece critically at all is going to have questions like this.

And this blatant leap of faith is on top of the fact that this author admits he is arguing against some positions that are not exactly rare among Americans these days.

Many of these ideas have been absorbed by people who have never heard of Rand or Objectivism. The rejection of a common good, the rejection of taxes for any purpose other than the police and national defense function of the government, the notion that business should be totally unrestrained by government regulation, and the belief that all charity should be completely private are views held by many voters and politicians.

And his rebuttal? "I often hear Libertarians [sic] ask the rhetorical question, 'Am I my brother's keeper?' We should remember this question was first asked by Cain after he murdered his brother Abel (Genesis 4:9)," thumped out in Morse code against a Bible, no doubt. All this man has is faith and guilt, which are remarkably ineffective against average Americans, thank God.

But Americans do have an immense respect for reason. I have seen much more effective attacks against Rand leveled by religionists who buried their unfounded assumptions under many more layers of argument, making their objections seem much more formidable to the unwary or intellectually undisciplined reader.

As with the leftist smear, this attack might ordinarily only remind readers of Rand. Interestingly, this article does have an added wrinkle caused by its author's cluelessness with respect to Objectivism: He confuses Libertarianism with Objectivism. This can be blamed at least in part on his source for what he takes to be Objectivist positions, The Objectivist Center. (For an imperfect religious analogy, TOC would be like a "Bible Center" that issued "Bibles" with some pages from an actual Bible, some pages from other sources, and some pages to be filled in as you please. Would you be studying a Bible or not? TOC would say that you are.) This confusion might cause readers who would otherwise be receptive to Rand's ideas (after being reminded of them or made curious about them only to visit TOC) to confuse them with Libertarianism and, rightly in that context, reject them.

So, Blair, I'd say the lefty unintentionally gave a weak plug for Rand, and that the righty almost did, but was thwarted by David Kelley, Murray Rothbard, and their ilk at The Objectivist Center. The blame for the damage done by that otherwise ineffective article lies entirely at their feet.

For our culture to change for the better, a philosophical revolution must occur. This means that we must introduce better ideas into the culture. Kelley to the contrary, old ideas packaged as new will not work. This approach and its result, the politics of Libertarianism, may look like a shortcut, but they will lead to a blind alley every time.

When people are so obviously hungry as they are today for an alternative to the nihilism of the left and the blind obedience of religion, the proper course of action is: Offer them an alternative rather than more of the same. (And my readers know what "alternative" I mean.) Thanks to Rev. Macdonald, we see the importance of making sure that what is offered as "Objectivism" really is what it's supposed to be: the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

-- CAV

PS: Andy Clarkson of the Charlotte Capitalist reports that the Charlotte Observer published no less than four letters to the editor by Objectivists who picked apart the second editorial, by the Rev. Mike Macdonald.

Updates

6-28-05: (1) Corrected typo and some wording. (2) Added PS. (3) Crossposted to the Egosphere

Suspended Animation

An Australian news service reports that scientific experts (a.k.a. boffins -- what a label!) have successfully revived dogs after they were clinically dead for three hours.

US scientists have succeeded in reviving the dogs after three hours of clinical death, paving the way for trials on humans within years.

Pittsburgh's Safar Centre [sic] for Resuscitation Research has developed a technique in which subject's veins are drained of blood and filled with an ice-cold salt solution.

The animals are considered scientifically dead, as they stop breathing and have no heartbeat or brain activity.

The technique, developed by a research team in Pittsburgh, offers hope to trauma victims, such as battlefield casualties or victims of violent crime, who have lost lots of blood. (Previous research showed that the technique could "enable survival without brain damage after exsanguination cardiac arrest of 60 minutes even in the presence of trauma.") The research was sponsored by the U.S. Navy.

-- CAV

Flag Waver Unwavering for Right to Burn

Mark Steyn writes a damned good piece on the flag burning controversy. Here's one gem of a paragraph among many.

If people feel that way, why protect them with a law that will make it harder for the rest of us to see them as they are? One thing I've learned in the last four years is that it's very difficult to talk honestly about the issues that confront us. A brave and outspoken journalist, Oriana Fallaci, is currently being prosecuted for ''vilification of religion,'' which is a crime in Italy; a Christian pastor has been ordered by an Australian court to apologize for his comments on Islam. In the European Union, ''xenophobia'' is against the law. A flag-burning amendment is the American equivalent of the rest of the West's ever more coercive constraints on free expression. The problem is not that some people burn flags; the problem is that the world view of which flag-burning is a mere ritual is so entrenched at the highest levels of Western culture.

Amen.

-- CAV

Obijav Kenobi

Reader and occasional comment-bomber Adrian Hester -- who really ought to consider blogging -- has sent me loads of interesting email in the past few days. Adrian has some familiarity with the Tajik language, from which the first word of this title, obijav, comes. It means "Beer" (hop-water, actually) and I'm afraid that the man wants to be known as "Obijav Kenobi" from this day forward. I have a New Orleans family connection, so he laid this one me, too: the phrase for snowman is mardi barf.

A Facetious Book Review

Anyway, Adrian works in a book store, and so has access to all manner of -- um -- reading material. His facetious review of The Big Book of Conspiracies was so good I asked whether I could reproduce it here.

We just got in the Big Book of Conspiracies, a comic-strip guide to all the nefarious goings-on that the highers-up don't want us to know about. Man, I didn't know half the stuff in that book! For instance, I knew already that the Nazis founded the CIA, but I didn't know space aliens started the Nazi Party. And while I knew Kennedy was hit by 243 bullets from every conceivable angle, I didn't know that some were fired by Catholic bishops, ultra-orthodox yeshiva-bucher, and the Salvation Army, nor that he was already dead from the poison Jackie had put in his coffee on the orders of Charles de Gaulle, nor that he was killed in order to draw everyone's attention away from the landing of a UFO in the Fort Worth Stock Yards. And I already knew from Jim Marrs' courageous exposes that the Merovingians were descendants of unions between space aliens and the missing ten tribes of Israel, and that Mary Magdalene and her children by Jesus intermarried into the lineage, but not that the Catholic Church approved the Albigensian Crusades for the sole purpose of burning the poppy seed fields they introduced into the south of France, since the Church needed a monopoly on opium to cover several popes' outstanding gambling debts. (Which is the real reason the Papacy eventually moved to Avignon--it was that much closer to Monte Carlo and Monaco,whose special industries go back much further than anyone realizes.) Wow. It was truly eye-opening.

See what I get to read in my email! It's like following my own secret blog! As for the (comic) book, I hadn't even heard of it until I read this. And I think I've read enough.

An Interesting Resource

Hester also mentioned to me that over the next three years or so, Darwin's complete works are going to be posted online.

-- CAV

June 26, 2005 Announcements

There's quite a lot afoot here and in my immediate neighborhood, which continues to grow....

Reason Roundup

This week's Reason Roundup has been posted at the Charlotte Capitalist

Welcome to the Reason Roundup. New Interview. Sham in Iran. Scenes on screens. the dope on hope. It's a drag about the flag. There's more in store...

On the Iranian elections, a fellow Houstonian was inspired by a Publius Pundit post on the sham elections and decided to do a little fieldwork of his own at the illegal Iranian polling place here in H-Town. He shot photos, some of which have uniformed HPD officers (!) as security.

Unknown Master

Robert Tracy over at Illustrated Ideas has a nice post about my favorite watercolor artist.

Wine!

Willy Shake has this week's wine recommendations over at Unconsidered Trifles.

Happy Blogiversary!

Bothenook over at a geezer's corner has been blogging for just over a year now. I've not only enjoyed his blog, but his recipes as well. The man can cook! He was also the first submarine blogger to welcome me to the blogosphere. Thanks to him, I've met a bunch of other great guys from the submarine force and get to experience some of the camaraderie from those times again.

Happy blogiversary, Bo!

Another Instalanche Hits my Blogroll

Way back, before I knew too many other submarine bloggers -- but Bothenook, apparently, knew us all -- he kept making the point on his blog that submariners, on the whole, make good bloggers. (I think I know why!) I started looking at a few of the other blogs from time to time and came to agree with him.

Not that I'm one to appeal to authority, but it looks like the grand master of blogging, Glenn Reynolds, is in full agreement with Bothenook: Fellow submariner Bubblehead got buried with hits a couple of weeks ago. I can't resist this quote from his account.

This is really screwing with my Sitemeter graphs. I mean, with the few hundred visits a day I was getting, you can't even see them now with the 12,000 hits skewing the y-axis."

Hearing this is just like being on a submarine all over again. Part of the job, I think, is to find something outside the normal band to complain about. No reason to believe this man is not a submariner! Check. Wanna print out that sitemeter graph and whip out a red pen? Oh. I see. You did that first, didn't you?

Now that I'm done giving him a hard time, visit the post for which he got the Instalanche and see why he got it.

The asshats [Fred Phelps and Co.] coming to protest today at the funeral of Cpl. Carrie French say that God killed her, and will continue killing American soldiers. Since those who killed her also think that God is on their side, it seems to me that the protesters share beliefs and goals with the terrorists in Iraq.

He photoblogged said protests. Unbelievable!

Blogroll Additions

I've added two more bloggers I met through Ultraquiet No More to my blogroll.

The first is Alex Nunez, a civilian submarine enthusiast and (chortle) New York Yankees fan. His blog is called The Noonz Wire, and among many other things, contains gems like this.

Is baseball the national passtime? Nah, that's just what everyone else tells Yankees fans. The real national passtime is listening to Yankees fans like Alex when their team is near or, preferably, below, the .500 mark. So, if you need your fix, you know where to go!

Welcome to the submarine clan, Alex! Smack talk is just part of the game! I have nothing against the Yanks, but still....

The second blogger is Rob Schumacher, who will be the second lefty on my blogroll. Nevertheless, he wasn't thrilled with the recent Kelo decision, so there may be some hope for him yet. (On his post, inter alia: But how is this seizure of homes any different from the myriad income redistribution schemes favored by leftists? Money, too, is property. Perhaps Kelo affords capitalists the opportunity to drive this point home.) If his pal Bubblehead is a South Park Republican, then perhaps Rob is a "King of the Hill" Democrat.

Blog Changes

I finally got around to making a few tweaks to my Blogger template. I cleaned up the appearance by moving my logos to the footer, added a few new resource links, and updated my list of favorite posts. I may be doing a few minor changes of a similar nature as time allows over the next few days.

Fans of my China/Latin America roundups will note that I have included a link to the index post under the "favorite links" on the right. I finally updated that post as well.

Home Brewing

I am pleased to note that my first home brew was also my first successful home brew. It still needs to age for about another week before its flavor is optimal, but it tasted fine today. I had been worried that bacterial contamination would ruin it, but those fears turned out to be exaggerated by my training as a scientist.

I did innovate by dry-hopping this Irish stout, and it seemed for awhile that this was a terrible idea. Last week, the beer tasted awful, with an overwhelming hop aftertaste that did not fit into the overall flavor scheme of a stout. Fortunately, some other flavors seem to have intensified enough that the hop aftertaste is much less intrusive. I still don't like the aftertaste, but I have learned how dry-hopping affects the flavor of the final product.

Batman Begins

The wife and I saw Batman Begins last night. Felipe's review was pretty much on the mark. A-.

-- CAV

The Small News and the Big News

The small (read: good) news is that Israel has agreed to not serve as a technology conduit for China.

Israel has bowed to U.S. pressure to cancel an arms deal with China and will impose tighter controls on its weapons exports in general, Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported on Sunday.

The dispute with the United States centers on Israel's sale of Harpy attack drones and other advanced technology to China which the Pentagon fears could tilt the balance of power and make it difficult to defend Taiwan.

This will scupper future Israeli arms deals with China. But speaking of Taiwan....

The big, bad news is that military analysts are concerned that China will be able to invade Taiwan within the next couple of years, consistent with the low-end estimates of other doomsday scenarios I have mentioned here. A Bill Gertz article, which appears in the Washington Times, considers China's military buildup, not just from the standpoint of its obvious desire to annex Taiwan, but from its economic motivations.

I'll highlight a few key points.

China is building its military forces faster than U.S. intelligence and military analysts expected, prompting fears that Beijing will attack Taiwan in the next two years, according to Pentagon officials.

U.S. defense and intelligence officials say all the signs point in one troubling direction: Beijing then will be forced to go to war with the United States, which has vowed to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

China's military buildup includes an array of new high-technology weapons, such as warships, submarines, missiles and a maneuverable warhead designed to defeat U.S. missile defenses [italics mine]. Recent intelligence reports also show that China has stepped up military exercises involving amphibious assaults, viewed as another sign that it is preparing for an attack on Taiwan.

So they're good and ready. The bit about the maneuverable warheads really bothers me, given that China, with its huge American espionage operation (See PS.), might perhaps know exactly what they need to accomplish with such a design. On top of that, Gertz goes on to summarize in some detail how China has been modernizing its forces.

One thing, especially, underscores the fact that China does not "merely" want to annex Taiwan, but that she desires to become a world power: her commitment to building a "blue-water" Navy.

... China wants a "blue-water" navy capable of projecting power far beyond the two island chains.

"If you look at the technical capabilities of the weapons platforms that they're fielding, the sea-keeping capabilities, the size, sensors and weapons fit, this capability transcends the baseline that is required to deal with a Taiwan situation militarily," the intelligence official said.

"So they are positioned then, if [Taiwan is] resolved one way or the other, to really become a regional military power as well."

The dispatch of a Han-class submarine late last year to waters near Guam, Taiwan and Japan was an indication of the Chinese military's drive to expand its oceangoing capabilities, the officials said. The submarine surfaced in Japanese waters, triggering an emergency deployment of Japan's naval forces.

Recall that China is doing all this at a time when our own navy has already been gutted and, barring a drastic change in defense outlays, is about to be hung to dry.

Barring massive intensification of China's simmering internal unrest, Taiwan is in the crosshairs and another war is on the horizon. We seem remarkably ill-prepared.

-- CAV

PS: I missed this last night, but on the subject of espionage, Gertz has written another, companion piece.

Updates

6-27-05: Added PS.

Warrants for CIA Agents Issued by NATO "Ally"

With the dream of Europe united under the boot of a crushing bureaucracy shattered, what is the government of a nation-state in decline to do?

Show those immigrants that Europe doesn't need an Islamic majority to vote itself into dhimmitude, thank you very much. That's what!

Italy, not a country to rest on its laurels after indicting an author for "vilifying" Islam, has now issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA agents for helping deport an imam to Egypt!

An Italian judge has ordered the arrest of 13 CIA agents for allegedly helping deport an imam to Egypt as part of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, an Italian official familiar with the investigation said Friday.

The agents are suspected [my italics, as if this is a crime -- ed] in the seizure of an Egyptian-born imam identified as Abu Omar on the streets of Milan in February 2003, according to the official, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

The U.S. Embassy in Rome declined to comment.

Prosecutors believe the agents seized Omar as part of the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program, in which terror suspects are transferred to third countries without court approval, according to reports Friday in newspapers Corriere della Sera and Il Giorno.

Investigators traced the agents through check-in details at Milan hotels and their use of Italian cell phones during the operation, the reports said. All the agents are American and include three women, Il Giorno said.

The reports said another six agents were being investigated for helping prepare the operation.

Gee. Thanks, Italy! As Oriana Fallaci puts it (HT: Bothenook, link at "author" above):

Europe is no longer Europe, it is 'Eurabia,' a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense. Servility to the invaders has poisoned democracy, with obvious consequences for the freedom of thought, and for the concept itself of liberty.

And David Holcberg's words (HT: Martin Lindeskog, link at "indicting" above) on the Fallaci indictment bear repeating here.

The decision of an Italian judge to indict author and New York resident Oriana Fallaci for being "offensive to Islam and to those who practice that religious faith" is a violation of her right to free speech and an absurd concession to Islamists at war with Western Civilization.

Fallaci, as any individual, should have the right to criticize any religion or ideology, free from government censorship or retaliation. If Muslims (or Italian judges) don't like Fallaci's books, they are free to not buy them. They have no right, however, to punish or silence her.

Freedom of speech does not exist in a vacuum. It must be defended. Even if Italy had correctly refused to indict Oriana Fallaci, this latest action would have undercut individual rights there by indicating a lack of will to fight for those rights. But when a society (like Italy, by all appearances) no longer regards freedom as an ideal, is it really surprising that it will begin to thwart efforts to defend freedom?

Via the General comes the following Fallaci quote that sums up nicely what Europe is failing to confront, and the proper attitude civilized men must take towards Islam.

"We can talk for centuries about the word 'racist,'" she said. "'Racist' has to do with race and not with religion. Yes, I am against that religion, a religion that controls the life of people in every minute of their day, that puts the burqa on women, that treats women as camels, that preaches polygamy, that cuts the hands of the poor thieves …. I am not religious -- all religions are difficult to accept for me -- but the Islamic one is not even a religion, in my opinion. It is a tyranny, a dictatorship -- the only religion on earth that has never committed a work of self-criticism …. It is immovable. It becomes worse and worse …. It is 1,400 years and these people never review themselves, and now they want to come impose it on me, on us?"

Once again, multiculturalism paves the way for dhimmitude.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Added another quote by Oriana Fallaci. (2) Corrected initial capital of word "imam." Holy dhimmitude, batman!

Blogroll Roundup

I've thought of doing this a few times in the past, but always ended up running into time constraints. And, as always, when push comes to shove, writing takes priority. Today, I find myself with an unexpected bit of time. I've already written an entry for today. I may yet do another. The point is, I'm free to goof off a bit.

But since I have the time to do this and the blogging in my own neighborhood has been interesting today, I'm going to do a blogroll roundup for today as of about 5:30 p.m. my time. To keep it simple, I'm restricting myself to entries written (in English) today and to bloggers who reciprocal link.

Benjo Blog

The General announces that (1) the third issue of The Undercurrent is available for sneak previews, (2) the deadline for ordering copies has been extended, and (3) there is an RSS feed for the blog over there.

a geezer's corner

Bothenook points out a hilarious video he learned about courtesy of The Noonz Wire. Follow the links and find out why the geezer may be in the market for Depends.

Chapomatic

In the funky department, Chap points out a site with Scopitone videos: "[W]hat interesting vids. Pop silliness with a Euro filter applied."

Charlotte Capitalist

Andy Clarkson makes a really good point about government-supplied internet access: Namely: It's what they have in China!

If you are a liberal, think of a conservative-controlled city government which owns your only wireless network. If you are a conservative, think of a liberal-controlled city government which owns your only wireless network. A little creepy.

Ego

Martin Lindeskog blogs about Gary Metz's (RegimeChangeIran.com) open letter to the international media in Iran.

Mover Mike

Mike discusses the Kelo vs. New London decision.

Noodle Food

Diana Hsieh passes on an anecdote about Ted Turner from John Podhoretz and asks why so many of our major businessmen are such fruitcakes.

Phatic Communion

Curtis Weeks aces an IQ test I've seen floating around the blogosphere. He beat me by five points. In my defense, I knew exactly which "General Intelligence" question I missed when I was forced to guess on the last question.

Riding Sun

The Gaijin Biker gets an Instalanche for his post on reporters who use, but do not trust, blogs. Take a look at an interesting entry, and see how it's done!

Secular Foxhole

Blair points out an interesting blog, The Devil's Excrement, by a Venezuelan dissident. He also notes where to find previews of beautiful Venezuelan women we all hope will one day demonstrate against the tyranny of El Loco.

Unconsidered Trifles

Willy Shake discovers James Lileks by way of a must-read, hilarious column about Gitmo.

Yours Truly

Well, that's a wrap! Lots of good stuff in the neighborhood. In the "promote your alliances meets shameless self-promotion" department, I'll note that I posted the latest entries in both group blogs I participate in. Over at Ultraquiet No More, I talk about Submarine Life Down Under. At The Egosphere, I bemoan today's horrendous Supreme Court decision.

-- CAV

High Court Bulldozes Property Rights

Welcome, readers from Nashvillefiles, and thanks for the link, Mr. Blake.

Less than an hour ago, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to bulldoze the concept of property rights.

On what basis was this decision made? The notion of the "common good".

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

To which I would reply, "And a landowner does not know what use for his own land would benefit himself the most? So what the hell does the title to your home mean if a "community" can now act on the notion that your loss is alright because it would mean more taxes go to the local government?

Or, as Ayn Rand once noted in her essay, "What is Capitalism?" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal:

When "the common good" of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals.

As in another recent setback -- at the hands of this court -- for the cause of individual rights, the Gonzales vs. Raich decision against the use of medical marijuana, Clarence Thomas wrote an excellent dissenting opinion.

Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with "just compensation," is unconstitutional.

"The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful," Thomas wrote. "So-called 'urban renewal' programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted."

In America, it was once true that a man's home is his castle. Now, here in America, we are no better off in that respect than the proles in China! Recall why there were recent reports of unrest in the "People's" Republic:

The tensions in Shengyou are playing out in many parts of China. On Thursday, villagers in a northern Beijing suburb blocked a road leading to their land, which they say has been taken unfairly from them to build an Olympic venue.

Only yesterday, I noted that just as China's government refused to cut North Korea's oil supply to get its autocrats to reconsider their crash nuclear weapons program, ours refuses to cut off its military's food supply.

So our government won't permit private citizens to use medicinal marijuana in their own homes and regards these homes as its own for the taking anyway. And this is on top of providing resources to a rogue state in Asia which is developing nuclear weaponry. And what if we want to dissent from this? Congress has already passed McCain-Feingold and dealt another blow against freedom of speech yesterday. This precious right is coming under new attacks -- by our own government -- on a daily basis.

So who's in charge? A government by the people, of the people, and for the people, or are the Red Chinese running things here? I'm having a hard time telling the difference these days.

-- CAV

Crossposted to the Egosphere

Updates

Today: Added welcome message.

Our Southwestern Underbelly

I haven't had time for a full roundup in awhile, but I have been keeping my eye on developments in China and Latin America.

First of all, the Washington Times reports that China has successfully tested as submarine-launched missile with a range of 6,000 miles.

The JL-2 is estimated to have a range of up to 6,000 miles, enough to hit targets in the United States.

A defense official said the missile test was a major step forward in China's strategic nuclear missile program and shows an improved capability to produce and launch submarine-launched missiles. "It was a successful test," this official said.

Of course, this was not news to followers of Ultraquiet No More, which reported this in a post by PigBoatSailor Friday. Beneath a map that shows how far away the Chinese can be and still hit the continental United States, he adds:

Oh, and yes, the article adds, a Chinese "nuclear submarine cruised around Guam and entered Japan's territorial waters. If China develops SLBMs further, the entire mainland of the United States would come within range of the missiles." So, it was right where a boomer would have to be to launch on us. The article claims, "The United States believes China is ready to deploy the Dong Feng-31 and has estimated that Beijing will have 100 warheads targeting the United States by 2015." I am not sure where that number comes from, so I cannot speak to its veracity. However, it is sounding as if China is trying to start its own little arms race with us. She has got a lot of catching up to do, but she is off to a good start.

This is very bad news. It gets worse. Recall that China is heavily invested in Latin America and especially with Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, with which she has favorable oil contracts. The Miami Herald today reports on the overall strategy of Hugo Chavez.

Oil revenue has been stolen to finance government political campaigns, buy off opponents, pay off the Cubans, buy weapons and establish relations with terrorist nations and terrorist organizations.

It is here that the actions of Chavez are most worrisome. Chavez has financed campaigns in other countries to topple democratic governments, such as in Bolivia and Ecuador.

Chavez has established relations with North Korea and has boasted of building a nuclear program with help from Iran.

Reports are that Chavez will redirect the oil he currently exports to America to China by 2007 [italics mine].

The United States cannot accept the manipulation of its economy by a dictator bent on conquest and empire. It calls for two things: Adoption of an American energy policy that not only frees us from imported petroleum but eventually from oil altogether; and a major push for the establishment of democracy in Venezuela.

Note that Chavez will deal America a double blow by redirecting its oil.

And meanwhile, note that Chavez is working with both North Korea and Iran to get nukes.

Oh yeah, spot Bush Iran, not that he deserves it. What are we doing about North Korea? We're feeding its military to the tune of 50,000 metric tons!

The United States will provide 50,000 metric tons of food to North Korea in a humanitarian decision that the Bush administration said is unrelated to stalemated efforts to get Pyongyang to end its nuclear weapons program.

Trying to ease the needs of the North Korean people and efforts to halt the weapons program are not linked, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said today in announcing a decision.

But even with this aid, "some segments of society have been reduced to one meal a day." Wouldn't it be more "humanitarian to free these people from the communist yoke, not to mention, better for our national interests than our pining-away for six-party talks that haven't happened in over a year and are of dubious value anyway?

Worse, still, our administration (1) realizes that this food is likely being diverted to the North Korean military (!) and (2) refuses to consider using food to gain diplomatic leverage!

At the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said: "We've been a big supplier of food to the North Korean people and the president has said that he does not believe that food should be used as a diplomatic weapon."

"We have always had concerns, though, that that food is getting to the people who need it — the people who are starving, the people who are hungry," McClellan added. "We want to make sure there are assurances that that food is going to those who need it — not to the government and not to the military in North Korea."

WTF?!?! Assurances? Like the ones about us holding six-party talks any time soon? Or the ones we'll get from such talks?

The worst bit about our refusal to use the "diplomatic weapon" at our disposal is twofold. First, we asked China to do exactly the same thing with oil, which they refused to do. (So we already know they won't be any help.) (2) Second, we have just told North Korea that they needn't fear consequences from ignoring what we keep asking them politely to do.

In a word: Alarming.

-- CAV

GOP Gift to Hillary: Own Head on Platter

The Republicans are in the process of turning a strident, power-hungry socialist into a viable candidate for President.

On the one hand, many, including Newt Gingrich, have been sidling up to Hillary Clinton publicly. Why? Mostly because they haven't the courage of actual convictions and so feel the need to look more "centrist." In some cases, it's not even that noble: Some just want attention. Even Dick Morris, a man more shrewd than principled, can see where that'll get them.

Her popularity is also getting a boost from the arranged marriage between former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton — a nuptial orchestrated by current President George W. Bush so he could use Clinton’s visibility to improve the public impression of his response to the tsunami disaster.

All those card-carrying Republicans are using Bill or Hillary to help their own careers by moving their images to the center, in the case of Newt, or to center stage, in the case of Santorum and Frist. But, in doing so, they are slitting their own throats.

The closer Clinton draws to the White House, the more the GOP should stay away from her. Rather than lend her credibility by seeming to bolster her, Republicans should do all they can to ghettoize her on the left. America needs to understand that Clinton is no centrist, and Republicans should not allow themselves to be used to make her appear so.

Worse, the some of the positions the Republicans are staking out these days are so patently absurd that anyone with a modicum of sense and a spine stands to rack up major points by opposing them. One follow-up report on the idiotic flag desecration amendment passed today in the House notes that Senator Clinton has graciously accepted the mantle of defender of freedom of speech.

But an AP survey Wednesday found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment - one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote, barring a change in position.

Late Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., revealed that she would vote against the measure. "I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," Clinton, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said in a statement.

Of course I'm being sarcastic about Hillary as a "defender" of freedom of speech. Her concern for that is about as deep as the concern she showed for the health of her countrymen when she honchoed the attempted nationalization of the medical sector back in her husband's first term.

Note that she's a key "swing vote" on the amendment in the Senate. She'll probably stick her finger in the wind and change her vote if she thinks doing so will win her enough support among social conservatives to warrant irritating her base a little bit. Her liberal base would see such a reversal as pure politics and put up with it, especially since 3/4 of the states would still have to approve the amendment.

The Republicans, by passing this amendment in the House, have put Hillary Clinton in an enviable position for a political opportunist: She's now a power broker on a hot-button issue she really cares nothing about.

Keep this up, Dumbo, and you will lose the Presidency in '08.

-- CAV

Updates

6-23-05: (1) Corrected bad wording in one sentence. (2) Removed some extra characters. (Has Microsoft replaced one set of substandard character codes with another?)

Congress Votes to Burn First Amendment

Today, the House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment against flag desecration by the necessary 2/3 majority and has sent it to the Senate, which is, ironically, supposed to consider it for passage after Independence Day. It is believed that, given the current composition of the Senate, the proposed amendment has the best chance ever of receiving a 2/3 vote there. If it does, it will be sent to the states, 3/4 of which must approve it before it is ratified.

It is bad enough that this passed in the first place, for it reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of or hostility to freedom of expression on the part of a significant number of the lawmakers in the lower house. What is worse is that the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001 were prostituted to rationalize the vote.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.

Not that I have a Ouija board on hand, but I strongly suspect that the victims would rather Congress do whatever it takes to protect the American people from murderers, especially on their own soil. Faced with imminent death, I doubt that indignation about "flag abuse" occupied much space in their minds.

In voting to ban freedom of expression -- even in the delimited (and often despicable) case of burning a flag -- Congress has shown that many of its members do not appreciate the vital importance of rights. And, since rights represent man's freedom of action within society -- action to further his own life -- this vote is a vote against our very lives. How fitting that Rep. Randy Cunningham (quoted above) felt the need to act as if the dead were his target constituency.

It should certainly not be very surprising that Cunningham justified his vote on what he claimed to be the wishes of the World Trade Center victims. The fundamental purpose of a government is to protect its citizens from the initiation of force. It achieves this by means of a monopoly on the use of force, which it uses to jail criminals, enforce contracts, and wage wars -- against those who would violate the rights of its citizens.

But in prohibiting flag desecration, the government would not be protecting the rights of any citizen. Instead, it would violate their rights -- exactly the opposite of what the government is intended for. And so we have a congressman preposterously claiming that someone whose government has already failed to protect his very life would want, of all things, a ban on flag-burning. This man has it so backwards that he even focuses on the dead, who need no government protection!

But what do I, John Q. Public, know? I'm obviously "out of touch with public sentiment" and completely ignorant of what Congress should be doing.

-- CAV

Crossposted to the Egosphere

My Gravatar

Quite a while back, I learned about gravatars, those little pictures you can associate with your email address and your blog, from Curtis over at Phatic Communion. I'd seen other bloggers using them before and wanted one of my own, but did not know what they were called. Of course, once I found out they were called "gravatars," I had merely replaced the obstacle of ignorance with that of indecision.

What would I use? I blog anonymously and even if I change my mind on that, I'll be loathe to make a big fuss over my actual identity here, much less post my picture. I'm a lousy artist. My best idea to date was a portrait of Abe Lincoln, but that symbolism would have been lost or completely misconstrued by everyone but myself.

So the next logical thing might be to symbolize my blog. I mostly write on politics and I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand, but I write for a broader audience. And then I sometimes blog on submarines over at Ultraquiet No More. Nothing I could think of really did a good job of tying everything together....

Until, that is, I came up with this. The idea is a few days old and my mind's eye saw something like this : A ship, possibly labeled with something like "Ship of Fools" is in the crosshairs of a periscope, a sitting duck for my snarky invective.

Perfect! The image of an enemy ship as a sitting duck would tie my political commentary together with my occasional outbursts of submarine blogging! Except that I lack that other skill with the pen: drawing. I figured I'd find some picture on the internet of a ship in the crosshairs and use that, but I got busy and forgot about it.

But I remembered it again tonight. I decided to consult my pair of submarine books at home. I did better than I imagined I would. Much better. Right there on the cover of Edward Horton's The Illustrated History of the Submarine was the perfect shot, which is described in a caption (with the complete, uncropped picture) on p. 118. This wasn't just a ship in the crosshairs. This was a ship in its last few moments afloat!

[This] victim of the torpedo ... [is a]n ex-French ship in German service, photographed through the periscope of an American submarine at the moment of impact.

Yes! Right at the moment of impact! I'm almost embarrassed to admit I didn't think of that myself!

I'm not completely up to speed on gravatars just yet, but expect to see this one from time to time in the near future at finer blogs near you.

But not here, alas! From the FAQ at gravatar.com: "We are in the process of discussing with Blogger the possibility of adding a gravatar template tag to their arsenal." I could use a third-party comment system, but Haloscan dumps comments after a certain amount of time, which I don't like, and I won't have the time to fool with others for awhile.

--- CAV

Updates

6-22-05: Minor corrections.

Florida Democrats Get Theirs

First, it happened to PETA. Now, it's happening to the Democrats! Once again, from the Poetic Justice Department ....

The Democrats, who brought us confiscatory tax rates, tax collection quotas, and unjustified raids on taxpayer homes, are getting to experience the tender mercies of the monster they fed and tended for so many years! And, oh yeah! Social security taxes bit them on the backside for good measure!

Broke and without enough money in the bank to pay its bills after the end of the month, the Florida Democratic Party has now been slapped with a lien by the Internal Revenue Service for failing to pay payroll and Social Security taxes in 2003.

The state party's budget and finance committee voted Tuesday to ask for a new audit to account for more than $900,000 it believes somehow disappeared from the books during the 2003-2004 calendar years when the party was led by Scott Maddox, who is now seeking its nomination for governor.

Maddox and successor Karen Thurman, who became the party's new chairwoman just last month, did not immediately return phone messages asking for comment on the findings.

While the party owes roughly $200,000 in delinquent payroll and Social Security taxes, the lien was against the remaining $98,000 in their account on Friday, longtime Leon County committeeman Jon Ausman said.

And, as a reminder of what government finances are like when they're in charge....

Ausman, who is also a member of the party's budget and finance committee, said the party's 2003 year-end audit showed $609,032 cash on hand. He said it netted $586,986 in 2004 when it raised about $18 million.

"I don't know how you start out with $609,000 and raise a net of $586,000 and end up with $269,000," he said.

I don't know, either! Have a great time explaining that one to the IRS, bud!

-- CAV