Quick Roundup 30

Good Column on Religious Censorship

This column at USA Today is worth a full read, both for some additional facts it delivers about the cartoon riots and for an important point it makes about how religious organizations tend not to receive much scrutiny in the United States.

These limitations on free speech [in Europe] are not just on paper. A German court last month convicted a 61-year-old man of insulting Islam by printing the word "Koran" on toilet paper and offering it to mosques. He received a suspended sentence of a year in jail.

Roberto Calderoli, who was pressured to resign as an Italian government minister last month for wearing a T-shirt showing controversial cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, is under investigation for "contempt of religion." He could be charged with offending the Islamic faith.

"At least nine countries have taken punitive actions against publications or their editors" for reprinting the Danish cartoons, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. "Six newspapers in three countries have been forced to close, and at least nine journalists in four countries have been arrested and face potential criminal prosecution. Governments have also issued censorship orders and sponsored protests."

One might have thought that the United States would pose a stark contrast, but the truth is that when it comes to religion, free press and speech principles too often take a back seat.

When the vast majority of newspapers in the USA did not publish the cartoons that are triggering dangerous riots leading to dozens of deaths in places as far-flung as Pakistan, Nigeria, Libya and Afghanistan, they obeyed a dangerous instinct in American society -- mindless deference to religious sensibilities and entities, just because they are religious. Had the cartoons depicted individual politicians, or secular historical figures, is there any doubt that the U.S. media would have published them without delay?

...

Yet that is the kind of misguided thinking that made it possible for this society to ignore the suffering of thousands upon thousands of children who have been abused by clergy in the Roman Catholic Church (and other religious institutions). It took many years before newspapers covered the issue or prosecutors took action because in too many cases, they were protecting the church from embarrassment and discomfort. The inevitable result was exponentially more crime and more suffering. Failing to hold religious entities accountable for their actions is, in a word, indefensible. [link and bold added]

The link above is eye-opening: Italy actually has laws against "offending public belief".

South Dakota Bans Abortion

Gideon Reich posts on South Dakota's recent attempt to trample upon a woman's right to determine whether and when she will remain pregnant.

Abortion is presently illegal in a state within the U.S. -- this is what happens when liberals think that "pro-choice" is a sufficient response to the faith of the anti-abortionists and more fundamental rational arguments for the morality of abortion are not heard. One can only hope that this law will be challenged and overturned at the Supreme Court though that is far from certain.

My own worst-case scenario has states' rights being misapplied to permit individual states to ban abortion in a few years when this makes it to the Supremes.

Paternalism vs. Patients

There is a good article on the FDA over at TCS Daily.

If our society permits citizens to make risk-benefit decisions about whether or not to have elective surgical facelifts and stomach-stapling operations for weight control. Whether to buy the penis-expanders and weight-loss snake oil nostrums that are intensively advertised on TV, and whether to invest in certificates of deposit, equities or junk bonds. How can we prohibit patients from making life-and-death medical decisions about drugs that have been shown to be effective?

Good point, but I'd strike "permits" and replace it with "respects the right of".

The title of the article reminds me of a sinister recent argument I read awhile back in favor of expanding the state's ability to make such decisions into other areas. It was called "libertarian paternalism".

Quick Roundups as Art?

I was thinking of just dropping the "Quick Roundup" part of the titles for this recurring feature and simply using numbers instead until I read this.

Gus Van Horn has developed the "Quick Roundup" into an art form. Often, the word count of his roundups will exceed the word counts in his regular posts for days at a time; he looks in a lot of places and responds to what he has read.

Why tamper with art? Of course, if Curtis Weeks was delivering a friendly jab at my verbosity, he will note that I won't be changing that either!

Bada-Boom!

I enjoyed and agree with this thorough horse-whipping that Nick Provenzo administered to George Reisman yesterday after the latter attacked Robert Mayhew for (admittedly) editing some extemporaneous comments by Ayn Rand (that she herself admitted should be edited before publication) for his book Ayn Rand Answers. I note my own earlier comments here on that matter.

The interesting thing to me is that the collection of all Rand's Q&A's is a great chance to see Ayn Rand thinking on her feet. But they should be read with the caveat that while this is a great thinker in action, we are seeing a great thinker who is not mercilessly editing herself as she did when she wrote. (But note that I am saying this not having read the book yet. I have no idea whether its editor did a systematic check of the answers against Rand's writings....) [bold added]

Provenzo then asks a question I'd like to see answered in a blistering finale.

I also have a recommendation for Dr. Reisman: since he's now the guardian of Ayn Rand's philosophy, why doesn't he contemplate the value of his fellowship at Ludwig von Mises Institute, an organization that hosts sundry articles like this and this on its website, and whose president hosts this gem on his personal website. Each article serves to inform the reader that Rand organized a cult, not a philsophy, and it seems to me that the continued prostitution of garbage like that is of more material importance than whipping one's self into a froth over Robert Mayhew's alleged editorial imperfections. And if engaging in that troubling moral evaluation doesn't appeal to Dr. Reisman, maybe he could do us all a favor and edit and essentialize his own book.

Hell, have you read all of Capitalism? Neither have I.

Read it all. The post, I mean.

Hugo "El Loco" Chavez Update

The Washington Times has a rather eye-opening summary of the antics of Hugo Chavez that I've been following here for some time.

Last fall, Mr. Chavez negotiated with selected members of Congress to sell small amounts of discount heating oil to poor neighborhoods in Northern U.S. cities, helping these officials gain political clout. Appreciated as it may have been by consumers, it came as a result of overall higher oil prices Mr. Chavez obtained by prodding fellow OPEC members to limit production. (Weeks ago, in a schizophrenic reversal, Mr. Chavez threatened to stop all exports to the United States. [Actually, this is old hat. --ed])

Closer to home, Mr. Chavez is friendly with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrillas and allowed FARC units to camp in Venezuelan territory. His regime granted FARC commander Rodrigo Granda Venezuelan citizenship before he was captured on a bounty and returned to Colombia. His regional satellite TV network, Telesur, bashes Colombia for its relations with the United States, in addition to beaming Marxist propaganda throughout South America.

He has proposed two energy cartels, PetroCaribe and PetroSur, to integrate Latin America's state hydrocarbon industries under his dominion with the idea of slowly choking off regional sales to the United States. And, despite controlling the seventh-largest oil and tenth-largest natural gas reserves in the world, Mr. Chavez announced plans to acquire nuclear technology from Iran, fueling fears he may try to develop a bomb.

Just as worrisome, Mr. Chavez has embarked on an arms buildup to scare Brazil and Colombia. He touts plans to buy more than a million rifles, acquire armored vehicles, new attack helicopters and possibly fighter bombers from Russia. Recently, he called for Britain to leave the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Chavez opposes the planned Free Trade Area of the Americas, while advocating his own Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) -- a vaguely defined aid network financed largely by Venezuelan oil profits. Though the highway to Caracas' international airport is in disrepair, he has reportedly committed more than $3 billion a year in aid to Latin American neighbors with no accountability to Venezuelan citizens. [links added]

Each link above leads to more details from previous blog entries. Not even mentioned is the fact that a Chavez protege is favored to win the presidency of Mexico, which will be holding elections soon. Or that Chavez is attempting to meddle in a mayoral election of a major American city.

Happy Blogiversary!

Lubber's Line, author of Hundreds of Fathoms, is celebrating a year of blogging!

-- CAV