Quick Roundup 40

Freedom of Speech Blogging

Boy! Get preoccupied for a couple of days and all sharia breaks loose....

(1) My fellow Objectivists were heavily involved in some intellectual activism regarding the appalling cowardice shown by the administration of NYU, which kowtowed to demands by Moslem students to censor an ARI-sponsored freedom of speech event called "Unveiling the Danish Cartoons."

Read all about it at Noodle Food and Thrutch. Amit Ghate of Thrutch has a couple of other interesting posts related to the matter as well, "Coverage of the NYU Event" and "Reconciling NYU and Borders". Update: NYU responds to the effect that if the Moslems just keep up their violent ways, they'll never have to worry about anything "offensive" being said about their religion at NYU. Pathetic.

(2) And then my fellow submariners have been standing up for the freedom of speech of an active duty submariner, Rob Schumacher, who now has navy lawyers investigating him because someone didn't like his blog and reported him. The consensus is that this will blow over, but for whoever reported him, I have two questions: "Do you really think the members of our armed services cannot speak their minds as private citizens? And, more to the point: Why are you demoralizing our men in a time of war?"

Perhaps the wrong man is being investigated.

TABC: Drunk on Power?

Via email, I learned that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is getting ready to send undercover agents into bars to hunt for drunks.

Yeah that TABC.

(HT: Myrhaf)

Frivolous Lawsuit against Anti-CAIR Dismissed

This is very good news.

A $1.35 million libel suit filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) against Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR (ACAIR), who called CAIR a "terrorist front organization," that was "founded by Hamas supporters," and was working to "make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States," has been dismissed with prejudice. According to ACAIR' Mr. Whitehead, who posts at www.anti-cair-net.org, "I am pleased to report the CAIR lawsuit has been dismissed after the parties reached a mutually agreeable settlement."

Terms of the settlement are confidential. However, no apology was issued, no retraction or corrections made, and the statements that triggered CAIR's suit remain on the ACAIR website. [link added]

Cox and Forkum have a good cartoon and roundup on CAIR's legal jihad here.

A Study in Contrasts

There's an old tasteless joke to the effect that the perfect woman would be 3'6", deaf, dumb, blind, have a flat head, and own a pub. Oh. And I almost forgot: toothless and big-eared.

Now, there's a place to get one, and they'll sometimes even throw in a tablecloth!

I have good domestic skills including cooking, cleaning,sewing, and raising farm animals. I'm an excellent conversationalist, of course only if you want me to be. Very subservient! ACT NOW!

Now why is it that most people -- especially so many of those supposedly interested in the rights of women -- would find the joke above more offensive than the notion -- taken seriously and drummed into the skulls of countless women the world over -- that a woman should immolate herself for a man by sacrificing her mind? At least the first, crass as it is, is only a joke.

Is it because it's easier to scold someone who should know better than it is to stand up to a barbarian?

The West needs to recalibrate in a hurry. (HT: Isaac Schroedinger and Ace of Spades HQ)

Weld Stumbles out of the Gate

The New York Sun editorializes on a tax cut proposal that is even more badly-presented than normal.

When we heard that Governor Weld was proposing eliminating the state income tax for those making less than $75,000 a year, we asked whether that would eliminate all state income tax for everyone on their first $75,000 in income or whether the tax break would apply just to those earning less than $75,000. The initial answer we received was that it was the former, which struck as a terrifically bold tax cut on the model of the growth-oriented income tax cuts that President Bush implemented after taking office. Call it the Good Start tax plan. But an aide to Mr. Weld, who is running as a Republican for governor of New York, later clarified that it is the second, meaning that Mr. Weld's tax-cutting program is off to a bad start. Call it the Bad Start tax plan.

It's bad enough that Republicans aren't challenging the idea at the root of taxation -- that the state can expropriate the property of its citizens by force -- but it's even worse when someone like Weld caves further to the notion that the rich somehow deserve to be taxed more than the poor.

-- CAV

Package Deal du Jour: Biopiracy

I found this TCS Daily article on an environmentalist conference recently held in Brazil notable for bringing to my attention an interesting example of a package deal called "biopiracy".

Let us first review just what, exactly, a package deal is. From a footnote by Leonard Peikoff to Ayn Rand's essay "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made", in Philosophy: Who Needs It:

"Package-dealing" is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or "package," elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance, or value.

Ayn Rand elaborates further in "How to Read (and Not to Write)" in The Ayn Rand Letter (I,26,3). "[Package-dealing employs] the shabby old gimmick of equating opposites by substituting nonessentials for their essential characteristics."

The article does not itself attempt to give a concise definition of "biopiracy", so I use this one, from Word Spy:

The patenting of plants, genes, and other biological products that are indigenous to a foreign country.

Uh. But isn't every country "foreign" to some other country? And while the "bio-" makes sense, why is technological innovation -- even if it consists only of discovering a hitherto unknown, naturally-occurring value "piracy"? Why not "biodiscovery"? Or "bioinnovation"? Or "biodevelopment"?

The article provides our answer, by using the term in its full intellectual context:

Today's version is the cargo cult is that forests and jungles of the developing world hold bounteous lodes of "Green Gold" - the genetic resources of the Earth: wondrous plants, insects, snakes and barks that traditional peoples for thousands of years have used to cure illness and fend off starvation.

Their right [sic] to this cargo is threatened by "biopiracy". This is a political term which means that foreigners (mainly multinational companies, of course) obtain these products (even buy them in the local market), take them away and create blockbuster drugs that earn billions.

To stop this "biopiracy" governments in Africa and Latin America, including Brazil, and India propose an international treaty which will "improve access" (i.e. stop foreigners) to these genetic resource and increase benefits (by holding up patents and other intellectual property if any shard of a genetic resource is used in any product patented), until they get their fair share. [bold added]

In other words, the natural biological resources of countries "foreign" to developed nations (i.e., the nations having the wherewithal to unlock the potential of these resources) are "pirated" if some innovator from the developed world has the temerity to develop said resources without cutting some local cheiftain or junta part of the profit.

This is a classic example of a package deal. Here, a particular type of innovation (bioscientific discovery) and a particular type of crime (piracy) are treated as if they are part of a coherent whole. The opposite notions of (1) the intellectual property of the scientists and (2) the stolen loot of a third world kleptocracy are treated as if they are the same thing. This is done by causing the reader to focus on nonessentials: where the scientist and his subject matter came from, the value of his discovery, and the poverty of the people who sat around the very same tropical plant for years without taking any interest in it whatsoever, for example.

As with any fallacy, the goal is to avoid having to make an argument. The goal here is clearly to use multiculturalism as a means of getting Western countries to simply hand over the values produced by their scientists to the governments of the third world. This means: to violate the property rights of their scientists. This is why, as the article rightly points out, if this idea is allowed to wreck intellectual property law, innovation in this area will grind to a halt and the natural biological resources of the third world will remain underutilized.

-- CAV

NRO Embraces Crunchy Cons

Awhile back, Nick Provenzo brought my attention to "crunchy conservatives", a new breed of conservative. Put more accurately, they aren't so much a "new breed" as a "next step" in the driving out of good, pro-capitalist premises by bad religious ones in the conservative movement.

On a stop by National Review Online today, I noted with dismay (but little surprise) that the web site has been hosting a blog called Crunchy Cons. Did someone at NRO see Robert Tracinski calling their republication last year of Whittaker Chambers's famously strident and inaccurate "review" of Atlas Shrugged "revisit[ing] an old low" -- and take that as a challenge to go lower? It sure looks like it to me.

Here's an example of what you can find over there.

Rod said:

The point is, since 9/11 I have become in many ways preoccupied with the idea that some rough history is headed our way, as Peggy Noonan put it, that we are unprepared for it, and are in fact living in ways that make it difficult even to think about preparing for what could happen.

I agree. But I arrive at that conclusion from what I take to be the perfectly natural and obvious truth that 99% of history has been rough and we have no reason to expect a lifelong exemption from that truth. I don't put a lot of stock in the prophets of any particular and specific disaster because they strike me not only as indulging in fantastic speculations, but also as buttressing, in a perverse kind of way, the alternative fantastic speculation that peace and prosperity and health and wealth are the natural state of affairs. Both sides completely miss the tragicomic outlook that properly ought to define our tenuous and fragile creaturely existence. [bold added, link dropped]

Hmmm. It is already a given that religious conservatives want to employ government force to make others live according to their religious dictates. For the crunchy cons, myriad environmental regulations would just fall under the same umbrella.

Unlike the more abstract threat posed by many religious injunctions, though, the threat posed by environmentalism to our material prosperity is well-known, and even admitted in the blog's manifesto:

Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

So, to borrow from Ayn Rand's famous characterization, we have a new breed of "Witch Doctors" seeking "Attilas" in government. The renunciation of what many leftists derisively call "American exceptionalism" (i.e., the notion that happiness is not only possible, but normal for man on this earth) in the bold from the quote above reminded me of the following quote from the title essay in Ayn Rand's For the New Intellectual.

Thus the Attila and the Witch Doctor form an alliance and divide their respective domains. Attila rules the realm of men's physical existence -- the Witch Doctor rules the realm of men's consciousness. Attila herds men into armies -- the Witch Doctor sets the armies' goals. Attila conquers empires -- the Witch Doctor writes their laws. Attila loots and plunders -- the Witch Doctor exhorts the victims to surpass their selfish concern with material property. Attila slaughters -- the Witch Doctor proclaims to the survivors that scourges are a retribution for their sins. Attila rules by means of fear, by keeping men under a constant threat of destruction -- the Witch Doctor rules by means of guilt, by keeping men convinced of their innate depravity, impotence and insignificance. Attila turns men's life on earth into a living hell -- the Witch Doctor tells them that it could not be otherwise. [bold added] (pp. 19-20)

Environmentalism is not just a moral ideal to the crunchy cons. Its destruction of capitalism is also a tactic.

-- CAV

Around the Web on 3-29-06

On Being a Mistrusted Minority

Andy points out a small problem with a recent poll that named "atheists" as America's "least trusted minority".

The problem with this poll is that is it based upon a term which is a negative. Atheism simply describes what you are not. It does not describe what you are. Thus, when you ask someone what they think about an atheist, who knows what is in their head.

Amen, brother!

Accent Test

I run into one of these once in awhile. Although I grew up in Mississippi and have now lived in Texas for almost half my life, I scored only a "57% Dixie." (HT: Eric Scheie)

Fan Girl Returns!

In reaction to Nick Provenzo's recent posts on Jack Wakeland, Jennifer Snow does a very good job of presenting the essence of Wakeland's arguments concerning the prosecution of the war.

Mr. Wakeland's support of Bush's "Forward Strategy of Freedom", in my understanding, is based on the fact that it means Bush has recognized two truths: that the real battle here is an ideological one, and that we have to stick with it until we win. While Bush hasn't been fantastic about finding and applying the correct strategies to realize either of these goals, he HAS been consistent in maintaining that there is an ideological battle and that we have to stick with it. In that respect, his floundering efforts deserve our support.

I myself have been sympathetic to the Forward Strategy of Freedom until very recently, when it became increasingly apparent that the outcome might be that America ends up establishing Islamic states, and that Bush does not seem terribly bothered by that. In that last respect, Bush does fail to appreciate the ideological nature of this conflict. While we must battle multiculturalists at home, as Jennifer correctly points out, a result favorable to the Islamic Totalitarians is likely to backfire.

One thing I thought of during my own recent consideration of the Provenzo pieces comes up again now. It is the thing that both necessitated Jennifer's exposition of Wakeland's argument and got mentioned in the comments on Nick's blog: TIA Daily has very little of its war commentary freely available on the web. Given that Wakeland's position is not widely held among Objectivists, I think that TIA Daily is doing itself no favors by not at least publishing more of this material on the web, as it used to do regularly at its blog so people can more easily evaluate its commentary for themselves.

Much of the war commentary at TIA Daily seems more speculative to me, often being either (1) an exploration of how best our society, self-limited by incorrect philosophical ideas as it is, can fight the war or (2) along the lines of an exploration of how societies evolve from primitive tyranny to freedom. Given that Ayn Rand held that ideas move history, examining history as it unfolds can yield useful insights. This is how I have taken much of the commentary at TIA Daily, and I have never myself been under the impression that Wakeland or anyone else there preferred the Forward Strategy to a proper subjugation of our enemies.

Other bloggers who have commented on Provenzo's essays are myself, Jim Woods, and Mike N. In the last, Mike elaborates on a point that I made on whether we would, as the "Kerry Objectivists" held leading up to the election, be better off with Kerry in office now. (Specifically, I question whether we would have much access to the alternative news media we are sometimes in danger of taking for granted.) Also, Gideon Reich commented on the debate over Bush some time ago here.

On the Kerry question -- and speaking solely for myself here -- I have to say that I disagree with Nick when he says, that the "[D]ebate [over the '04 elections] was worth whatever the odds were that Objectivist votes could swing the election, which was somewhere between zero and nill." To the contrary, no matter who runs in the next race, it is a sucker bet we will be unhappy with his prosecution of the war. We would do well to learn as much as we can from the '04 race beforehand. Let's pay very close attention to which candidate will most likely continue to respect our right to dissent!

Allah to Moslem Mystics: Jump in a lake.

Michelle Malkin blogs about some British Moslems who claim to have seen the Arabic for "Allah" and "Mohammed" (justice be upon his minions) on a couple of tropical fish.

Leaders at the nearby Al-Rahma mosque in Hatherley Street, are in no doubt about the authenticity. Sheikh Sadek Kassem, the mosque's Imam, said: "This is a proof and a sign not just to Liverpool's Muslims, but for everyone." The fish were bought last week from a pet store in Speke by Ali AlWaqedi, 23. He spotted a squiggle on the side of one fish that mirrored the Arabic word for God - Allah.

Then he noticed another fish, in a different tank, that seemed to bear the Arabic spelling of Mohammed, known by Muslims as Islam's last Messenger. Ali said: "This is a message from Allah to me, a reminder, and now my faith is stronger. Everyone is so excited by the discovery."

I like to think that Allah is commanding his mindless servants to attempt to live in an aquatic environment.

Another Way to "Act White"

When one's peers deride a strong intellect and healthy relationships, who needs Whitey to keep him down?

Why France is in Trouble

Simon Patkin observes:

Over 500,000 students demonstrated in France last week against labour reform, but only a handful protested against Islamic threats to free speech.

(HT: Blair)

Death Worship

Amit Ghate improves upon a point I made recently.

[A] man's primary choice is to decide whether he wants to remain in existence, i.e. if he wants to live or not, and only if he does, is it essential for him to use his mind. I submit that the Palestinians and most Islamists have not even made the choice to live -- they are in fact self-avowed death worshippers. This is something that is very difficult for good people to grasp, precisely because it is so horrible, but grasp it we must if we are to win the war they are waging on us.

And be sure to stop by for a gander at the Musselman holding the "We love Prophet Mohammed more than our lives" placard.

Sleep-Divorcing

And speaking of loving a "prophet" more than one's life, here's a prime example of mere words not even spoken consciously trumping someone's lifelong commitment, according to the dim lights of Islam.

Everyone knows about sleep walking. Just the other day, I heard about the term "sleep eating". And now, courtesy of the medieval mentality, we have "sleep-divorcing".

A Muslim couple in India has been told by local Islamic leaders they must separate after the husband 'divorced' his wife in his sleep, the Press Trust of India reported.

Sohela Ansari told friends that her husband Aftab had uttered the word 'talaq,' or divorce, three times in his sleep, according to the report published in newspapers Monday.

When local Islamic leaders got to hear, they said Aftab's words constituted a divorce under an Islamic procedure known as 'triple talaq.' The couple, married for 11 years with three children, were told they had to split.

To remarry, the couple were told that she would have to sleep with another man and be divorced by him first -- after 100 days had passed.

I'm no Islamic scholar, but if we were to see a sudden rash of Moslem women claiming that their husbands "divorced" them while asleep, I have a crazy feeling that this ruling will fail to set a precedent.

If there is any doubt that Islam is all about erasing any vestige of independent judgement in the minds of its followers, this example should put it to rest.

Second Carnival of the Objectivists

Nick Provenzo plans to host the second Carnival of the Objectivists on April 1.

-- CAV

Electronic Machine Politics

When I first skimmed over the title to this very important column by Richard Brand ("Why is Hugo Chavez Involved With U.S. Voting Machines?") over at RealClear Politics, my brain thought of the idiom "machine politics". "Well, now! It's about time," I thought, "someone wrote a long expose on the collusion between Chavez and Democrat politicians in the Northeast." This coziness, based on Chavez offering oil for prices he graciously reduced from the high ones he helped fix via OPEC, bears a striking resemblance to what he does throughout Latin America. An unchecked Hugo Chavez could end up having grave security implications for the United States.

Alas, it was not to be. And worse, the column was about something else entirely, something that might obviate the need for Chavez to bribe gullible Democrats. Recall this, from an outstanding article I blogged recently that detailed the vice grip Chavez has on Venezuela.

... Just this past November a group of academics disclosed the findings of a new study they had just completed with regards to the August 2004 vote. [This was an election to recall Hugo Chavez held, against long odds and a systematic campaign of voter intimidation by the Chavistas. --ed] ... Their study concluded that between 1.5 and 2 million votes had been inserted into voting machines, turning a 5 percentage point victory for the opposition into a 20 point defeat.

...

[A]t a voting simulation for international observers, the [Venezuelan] opposition demonstrated that Smartmatic voting machines to be used in the election could be used to keep track of individual votes. As observers voted in a mock election a man named Leopoldo Gonzalez read aloud for whom each person had voted. Embarrassed, Smartmatic technicians had him stop the demonstration and in the days that would follow the government would offer further concessions in an attempt to have the election as planned despite this demonstration. [bold added]

Who would have guessed that Chavez and his cronies -- never content to demonstrate the evils of state ownership of private companies on just their own citizens -- now own the company that makes American voting machines!

Congress spent two weeks overreacting to news that Dubai Ports World would operate several American ports, including Miami's, but a better target for their hysteria would be the acquisition by Smartmatic International of California-based Sequoia Voting Systems, whose machines serve millions of U.S. voters. That Smartmatic -- which has been accused by Venezuela's opposition of helping Chavez rig elections in his favor -- now controls a major U.S. e-voting firm should give pause to anybody who thinks that replacing our antiquated butterfly ballots and hanging chads will restore Americans' faith in our electoral process. [bold added]

The article, which follows this bombshell with details on the thrown Venezuelan election, then concludes:

Why Smartmatic has chosen yet again to abuse the corporate form apparently to conceal the nationality and identity of its true owners is a question that should worry anyone who votes using one of its machines. Congress panicked upon hearing that our ports would be run by an American ally, Dubai, but never asked whether America's actual enemies in Venezuela have been able to acquire influence in our electoral process.

The bad thing obout Congressional myopia is this: there's a whole world of things one can miss by being near-sighted! I really hope, now that this has come to light, it gets taken seriously, especially by the REPUBLICANS, whose majority in the House isn't exactly secure to begin with!

-- CAV

Updates

10-29-06: Added missing hyperlink to RCP article.

Quick Roundup 39

Farkalanche!

Apparently, bloggers can experience bucketloads of hits that dwarf an Instalanch. Congratulations to the Gaijin Biker for scoring a link from Fark for his amusing post, "Sign me up for Buddhism, Part II", about a Japanese shrine that one would think was devoted entirely to the worship of women's breasts based on the fact that it has a "breast-shaped incense holder, and [a] breast fountain with squirting nipples."

Wakeland, Part II

On a more serious note, Nick Provenzo makes some excellent points in his pair of posts on Jack Wakeland's assessment of George Bush and his prosecution of the war over at Rule of Reason. Anyone who supports Bush's "Forward Strategy of Freedom" should read those two posts. I have further thoughts here.

The Ships are big here, too!

The tall ship Elissa, which has graced the waterfront in Galveston for nearly a quarter of a century, has just been named the official "Tall Ship of Texas".

Although its role is not mentioned in the article, Houston's own Saint Arnold Brewing Company has been instrumental in raising funds for the preservation of the ship through sales of its newest (and my favorite) regular brew, Elissa IPA.

Oh, and I see that they've added another product since the last time I stopped by!

Our Divine Reserve is a series of single batch beers, each brewed with a completely different recipe. The batches are identified by the number on the neck label. There is no particular theme to the beers, although it can be assumed that most all of them will be big. Many will benefit from being aged.

Soldiers and sailors have freedom of speech, too.

I haven't had a chance to delve into this very deeply, but one of my fellow submarine bloggers has been involved in a little debate about freedom of speech for members of the military. I rarely agree with Rob Schumacher, the lone liberal of our crew, but although he is on active duty, he certainly still has freedom of speech. Furthermore, Rob brings up various points from the Uniform Code of Military Justice to support his contention that, since he is not speaking in an official capacity, what he is doing is not legally wrong. From what I remember, the UCMJ basically (and correctly) forbids members of the military from making it seem like the United States government endorses their opinions.

Now, if only the federal government would become more fully consistent in that regard -- by getting itself and our local governments out of the education sector of the economy, where government employees like Jay Bennish routinely get to indoctrinate children held captive by truancy laws with their own personal opinions in lieu of actual lessons, and with money taken from their parents and others by force besides.

The Undercurrent is (almost) out ...

... for April.

-- CAV

Remind me to read The Onion ...

... the next time I need an idea for a grant.

From The Onion, a shade over three years ago. (I love the headline: "Bacon Good for You, Reports Best Scientist Ever".)

ROCHESTER, MN -- Bacon, long believed to contribute to heart disease and obesity, possesses significant health benefits, according to a study released Monday by Dr. Albert Gruber, the best scientist ever. "My research has found that three strips of crispy, mouthwatering bacon every morning can actually reduce cholesterol and help slow the aging process," the awesome Gruber said. "What's more, the bacon's positive effects are enhanced when combined with milk shakes and/or marijuana." In 1997, Gruber, a Mayo Clinic cardiologist, was awarded nine Nobel Prizes in Medicine for discovering that frequent oral sex with models cures cancer.

From today's news:

COLUMBIA, Mo., March 27 - Heart-healthy bacon, an ostensible contradiction in terms, might one day be a reality thanks to researchers here who have created transgenic pigs with meat that contains high levels of omega-3 fatty acids.

"These levels are higher than what you would get if you fed pigs high levels of omega-3 fatty acids," said Randall Prather, Ph.D., of the University of Missouri-Columbia in an interview.

It used to be that you went to Mad Magazine. for such predictions. Adapt or perish!

-- CAV

Rites of Spring

Until I got interested in discussing the Provenzo article yesterday, I was going to do a quick blog on my annual inauguration of the barbecue season here in subtropical Houston, so I'll do that now instead....

Houston is definitely a city that grows on you. Way back in 1994, when I was trying to decide where to attend graduate school, I had to choose between Houston and Austin, and much of my overall impression of Houston came from two trips I'd made down here, one of which featured a bus ride through what turned out to be one of the worst parts of town. My impression was, basically, one of a huge, sprawling, flat, poor, run-down Gulf Coast city. I had listed "Houston" as one of the top "negatives" in the ledger for Rice University.

Luckily, UT Austin didn't put together a good offer and I ended up choosing Rice, which meant that I got to know and love Houston over the years. Yes, it's huge, sprawling, and flat. But it is also cosmopolitan and Southern at the same time. Once you find your way around, the vastness and sprawl cease to overwhelm you and you learn to appreciate the fact that Houston has many distinct neighborhoods, each with its own attractions and charms. And the place has numerous idiosyncrasies which doubtless have visitors and newcomers scratching their heads, but which the natives overlook, if they not actually view with affection. Marvin "Slime in the ice machine!" Zindler is a good example. The weather -- hot and stifling nine months of the year with off-the-charts pollen counts -- is another. The city is such a barbecue hotbed that a couple of years ago, it got national headlines when a study showed that the culinary activity was a significant contributor to our smog.

With the subtropical weather and the size of the city, one anticipates spring a little differently down here than one might elsewhere. Last year, for example, my "first sign of spring" was a mosquito I spotted in February. This year, I knew spring was on its way when I nearly stepped in an anthill next to my driveway a few weeks ago! Geckos in the trash are, I am sure, just around the corner!

In any event, we had unseasonably chilly (read mid-seventies) weather over the weekend, which was my first one completely off from work in quite a while, so I did what any other Houstonian would do when confronted with one of the fourteen perfect days of the year on a weekend: I fired up the barbecue!

I didn't have all day, so brisket was out. Just grilled some New York strip steaks while sipping a nice cold Maredsous 8 and doing a bit of light reading. My original impetus for blogging this enjoyable, but frankly rather prosaic event was that a couple of devices made it all the more enjoyable, and one of those reminded me of another I meant to blog long ago. So I'll finish up with those and a DVD set I also happened to remember.

Charcoal Chimney Starter

Awhile back, while perusing Steven Raichlen's How to Grill: The Complete Illustrated Book of Barbecue Techniques, I noticed that he advocated using a chimney starter. I had heard of these before, but always in some goofy, environmentalist context. "God forbid a Texan use a petroleum product to start his charcoal ablaze," I thought. But Raichlen touted the convenience of using a chimney starter, not to mention the fact that there would be no chance of tasting lighter fluid in one's barbecue. I'd never had the latter problem, but with his endorsement, I wanted to try one. So when my wife asked me for gift ideas for my birthday late last year, I mentioned this. So I got one, and have been looking forward to trying it out ever since.

Just for thoroughness, here's a brief description.

At one time or another most of us have had the unpleasant experience of eating barbecue that tasted as if it had been basted with lighter fluid. You can light your briquets without these risks with the help of a charcoal chimney. Your briquets will be ready for barbecuing in fifteen minutes or less without the danger of flare-ups and tainted food, and you will get a consistent start every time.

A charcoal chimney is basically a short section of approximately eight-inch diameter metal pipe, commonly heavy-gauge aluminum, with a grate in one end and intake holes to control air flow and speed ignition. The grate permits an even air flow around the briquets for a fast, even start.

I am always skeptical of such product descriptions, but I have to say that this thing lived up to the hype. Lighting charcoal had always been a big headache. Build a pyramid. Douse it with lighter fluid. Let it soak for 15 minutes. Douse it again. Light it and sit there with it for 20-30 more minutes. If you're lucky, the charcoal is ready to be spread around in the pit. The whole thing can easily take more than an hour.

Not so with this baby! All I had to do was (1) place some crumpled-up newspaper in the bottom of the chimney, (2) set it on fire, and (3) keep an eye on it for 20 minutes. The coals were good and ready by then, and the starter made it easy to spread them around. Nice!

Bottle Opener

The picture I wanted to show the most, that of my favorite bottle opener, is copy-protected on its vendor's site. This strikes me as very silly since having a satisfied customer like myself posting a picture of it along with my rave review would presumably amount to free advertising. But then I guess that's why one man is able to make a living designing useful objects while another ends up in the marketing department.... (On the other hand, he did just force me to send you straight to his purchasing site, didn't he?)

Even small items should be visually attractive: It requires just a little twist to remove crown-caps with the Bottle Opener. Even better, since they're hardly touched, they can even be put back onto the bottle again.

We'll just say that this bottle opener is very handsome and makes opening your brewski obscenely easy. No barbecue toolbox should be without one.

Wine Uncorker

While we did not enjoy wine with our steaks this time around, the above bottle opener reminded me of this fantastic wine bottle uncorker. This vendor's description does not do it justice:

With its unique leverpull design, our compact wine opener provides effortless cork removal every time. Crafted with the same precision found in our entire line of Connoisseur wine accessories, this wine opener features a handgrip that safely secures the bottle and a sculpted handle for single-motion cork removal. Includes foil cutter.

This thing is amazing. You place it in position. One lever motion screws the corkscrew in. Another easy lever motion removes the cork from the bottle cleanly. No tugging or straining is necessary. One more motion cleanly removes the cork from the corkscrew. No more risk of injury -- or worse, spillage -- when opening bottles. No more ruined corks. Only a strict traditionalist might object to this device -- or someone with a neurotic need to "prove himself" by opening wine bottles "the hard way"!

But I do find it amusing that a problem of the ages -- how best to uncork a wine bottle -- got licked just as the natural wine cork appears to be on its way out!

Chef! Series on DVD!

And now, on to something even more tangentially related to a post on barbecue....

I love British comedy, and one of my favorite series was a short-lived one I haven't seen in years called Chef!. Friday, I was somehow reminded of it and decided to see whether it had finally made it to DVD. And it has!

Meet Britain's finest -- and most ill-tempered -- chef, Gareth Blackstock (Lenny Henry), of the prestigious Le Chateau Anglais restaurant. Each meal is a masterpiece. Just don't ask for salt. Chef Blackstock rules his kitchen with an iron ladle and puts up with no slacking. The trouble is that his underpaid and overworked kitchen staff is littered with slackers. Tuck in and prepare to double over in laughter with this hilarious and much loved comedy series from the BBC! [link added]

I suspect that I'll be ordering this one very soon.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Fixed a typo.

Objectivists and Bush

Friday, Nick Provenzo called Jack Wakeland of TIA Daily to task over at his blog for saying that Objectivist opponents of the Bush administration "are doing our enemy's work". The post and extensive comments (38 as of the start of this writing) bring up numerous issues, from whether TIA Daily is in decline, to the propriety of Wakeland's apparently calling Objectivists of the anti-Bush camp "traitors", to whether America really is winning the current war.

I almost titled this post "Jack Wakeland steps in it," but since I can't help but wonder whether I am about to do the same, I chose a different title. Let me state at the outset that I am not setting out to defend Jack Wakeland. He'll have to do that himself. I will also state that my position has, in the past, been to support the Bush administration. Even so, I have frequently made my displeasure -- both with this administration's often timid prosecution of the war and its anticapitalist domestic agenda -- clear at this blog. What I intend to do here is chew over a few things that post and some other reading have caused me to think about.

I have not considered all the ramifications of that post and the ensuing discussion, nor do I have the time or the inclination to pursue them all. Instead, I will comment briefly on what I think is the central issue: In what way does an Objectivist rationally participate, if at all, in our political system as it is today? Specifically, should an Objectivist support the Bush administration during this war? And, if so, what would such support entail?

I have already offered some thoughts on this subject here and, long ago, I reviewed the various Objectivist positions on the 2004 Presidential election here. My thinking remains largely unchanged, except that in light of Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein's excellent article, "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense", which recently appeared in The Objective Standard, I have significantly downgraded my estimate of how likely Bush is to realize even the low hopes I still held out for him. (And if you haven't read the article at that last link, drop everything and do so.)

I also considered whether, being a lukewarm supporter of Bush, or "anti-Bushite for Bush", Wakeland's charge that the anti-Bush Objectivists (many of whom advocated voting for Kerry) had simply failed to register. Here is the entire paragraph.

To say that George Bush's efforts at national defense are worse than nothing -- something I hear way too often from Objectivists -- is worse than factually false. If you follow the implications of this falsehood to claim that America is losing, you are doing our enemy's work. The enemy is far too weak to win on the battlefield. His can only win by reducing the effectiveness of our efforts by conning us into altruist mercy -- and then hoping we'll become too weary and disgusted with the futility of the ineffective efforts; too weary and disgusted to remember what we're fighting for; too weary and disgusted to stay on the field of battle.

I see, however, that I did not miss what Wakeland said. I merely read it differently. Wakeland is, I think, speaking of whether our nation will lose the war militarily. This is extremely unlikely, as Brook and Epstein themselves say -- unless we stop fighting altogether. This is a distinct possibility, as witness the fact that in our last election, we came rather close to electing the anti-war candidate. For what it's worth, I suspect that Wakeland is worried that Objectivists not supporting the Bush administration will shift our public's momentum in the direction of withdrawing our troops from the Middle East. I take Wakeland's "you are doing your enemy's work" more as advice against playing into the enemy's hands and nothing more.

The question remains, though: Is this good advice? It would be, if Bush were leading us to victory. However, Brook and Epstein make it quite clear that Bush's strategy will not lead us to victory.

Defeat in the war with Islamic Totalitarianism does not simply mean that America becomes an Islamic theocracy or that our soldiers fight battles in the streets of Atlanta; these prospects are, fortunately, extremely unlikely. Defeat means any enduring negative change to the American way of life as the result of an active enemy, such as the colored alerts, or the provisions of the Patriot Act that allow virtually anyone to be investigated as a terrorist subject, or the random airport searches suffered by innocent travelers. [italics added]

In deciding whom to support in the last Presidential election, I considered (1) what it would take for victory in this war and (2) whether, given the predominant philosophical premises of our populace, it was reasonable to expect that a leader willing to carry it out could get elected.

(1) The short list of ways to emasculate our Islamofascist enemy after the September 2001 atrocities would include (1) obliterating as many capitals, large cities, and military installations in hostile Islamic countries as deemed militarily necessary, or necessary to serve as an example of what any survivors could expect if they continued to tolerate Islamofascism in their midst; (2) military takeover of any important facilities, such as oil fields (and in the latter case auctioning them off to American companies whenever impossible to show ownership prior to their nationalization by these states); (3) total blockade (If they don't need "infidels", they don't need their wheat, either, do they?); (5) prohibition of travel into America by anyone from a hostile Moslem nation; and (6) deportation of anyone from such a nation. The proper way to deal with the suicide cult of Islamofascism is to give its followers what they would get without us in the world to shield them from their own irrationality: death. The infidel Atlas should shrug.

(2) Our nation woke up after September 11, 2001, but we seem to be a bit groggy still. For one thing, where's the anger? Sometimes, I think I'm the only person in this country who remains extremely upset by what happened on that terrible day. For another, I outlined above what I regard as the most proper and effective response to Islamofascism. But if we had a nation and a leader who would follow such a plan, would we have gotten ourselves into today's predicament in the first place? Would we have sat on our hands for fifty years while savages gradually chipped away at us? No. Our nation is still in a moral haze about the terrorist attacks. And that is why I favor the "forward strategy of freedom," though I will always urge Bush to act more boldly and argue for the more proper response. Our cultural and political milieu will, in the near term, not permit a more vigorous prosecution of this war. As Rumsfeld might put it: fight with the (mostly Christian) army you've got. I once heard that the Romans would chase down and kill any foreigner who would so much as harm a hair of a Roman citizen. We should be doing that sort of thing, but we aren't, and won't for awhile. How do we survive to fight another day, if we are in this predicament?

I concluded then that I would support Bush as a sort of "survive to fight another day" candidate, while working to spread more rational ideas in whatever way I could. Perhaps we would someday not have to choose between a pragmatist and a pacifist during a wartime election.

At the time, I was unaware of the intellectual stranglehold that Just War Theory has in the West. I also had higher hopes than I do now in the notion that exposure to Western values (Wakeland's "Empire of the Pursuit of Happiness") might aid the spread of pro-Western governments in the Middle East (Glenn Reynold's "preference cascades"). I have not entirely abandoned hope that secular, pro-Western governments could arise in in the MIddle East, but even this cannot occur under the Forward Strategy of Freedom unless the Bush administration takes a more proactive role, along the lines intimated by Brook and Epstein:

Democracy is democracy -- that is, democracy is mob rule, which is precisely why it must be rejected in any proper occupation. (When a population has proven itself to be non-threatening to America, it should be given the power to vote, but only in the selection of leaders, not the content of the constitution.) Note that in Japan, General Douglas MacArthur did not ask the Japanese to write a constitution but forced a constitution written by Americans onto the Japanese. Both America and Japan have benefited from this for sixty years.

Unfortunately, we have simply permitted Iraq and Afghanistan to incorporate Islamic law as the basis for their constitutions, which will not lead to either country being remotely friendly to the United States.

And then there is the matter of Iran and North Korea, who are developing nuclear weapons with the huge chunks of time we have given them with our diplomatic efforts to "stop" them. I recently blogged about our over-reliance on less-than-stalwart diplomatic partners for this, but I was shocked to read the following in the Just War article:

In an interview in 2004, Bush said: "We will continue pressing [Iran] diplomatically ... . Diplomacy failed for 11 years in Iraq ... and this new diplomatic effort [in Iran started] barely a year ago." 14 Could anything be more encouraging for the nations and groups seeking to wage a long-term battle against the West?

At this point, the only rational conclusion about whether one can still support Bush is that one cannot, unless, at a bare minimum, he acts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and reverses his disastrous course of sending our men to fight in the Middle East -- merely for the sake of establishing Islamic law as the law of the land in the territories we conquer. Why? Because if one is supporting Bush's efforts for the sake of "living to fight another day", it would be better to bring the troops home than to have them winning overwhelmingly, only for our addled statesmen to hand our spoils over to the mullahs.

It is important to note that regardless of whether one, as an Objectivist, supports Bush or not, it is vital that one makes it clear that he supports a ruthless military campaign with its only object being the furtherance of America's national interests.

Having said all that, I will make the further discouraging observation that we are probably still better off now than had we elected Kerry. (And I bring this up because so many Objectivists advocated voting for him instead of Bush.) The refusal of the American people to back down in the face of our enemy was registered by the vote for Bush, for one thing. I think that this does at least inform the Islamists that, while America's leadership may be addled, its people are not as far gone as those in Europe.

But on a more important front -- the domestic front -- we are potentially far better off because Kerry and most of the Democratic party have strongly totalitarian impulses and, as I have blogged recently, want more than anything else to restrict our freedom of speech, which is the very means by which one's opinion of the war effort is registered. Quoting from City Journal:

The rise of alternative media -- political talk radio in the eighties, cable news in the nineties, and the blogosphere in the new millennium -- has broken the liberal monopoly over news and opinion outlets. The Left understands acutely the implications of this revolution, blaming much of the Democratic Party's current electoral trouble on the influence of the new media's vigorous conservative voices. Instead of fighting back with ideas, however, today's liberals quietly, relentlessly, and illiberally are working to smother this flourishing universe of political discourse under a tangle of campaign-finance and media regulations.

If efforts like these succeed, it almost won't matter what Objectivists -- or anyone else who wants to defeat Islamic Totalitarianism -- thinks about what our government does or fails to do in this war. This is a very important thing to remember in future elections, and one which I saw no Objectivist (myself included) consider in 2004. And God help us all if we have a Clinton-McCain contest in 2008.

It's late, so I'm wrapping this up. Your thoughts and comments are welcome. I'm not sure how much further I plan to take this complicated subject, but it was definitely on my mind today....

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 38

Financial Run

The name for Nick Provenzo's current fund drive for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism sounds almost like the name of a run for charity to me....

And to help carry on the Objectivist fight is precisely why I founded the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. When first launched in 1998, it was because I believed that the advance of Objectivism required a group that was both intellectual and activist and that was uniquely dedicated to defending Ayn Rand's trader principle as the only legitimate basis for our social relationships. The Center's mission was thus defined as using Objectivism to present policymakers, the judiciary and the public analyses to assist in the identification and protection of the individual rights of the American people.

50k for Freedom! Stop by and help him get there!

Intellectual Slavery

Isaac Schroedinger (I use the "e" because Blogger makes any attempt to use umlauts into a fight to the death against its own silly automatic code "corrections". And I thought "smart quotes" were bad....) has an interesting piece on the lack of intellectual freedom in the Middle East.

While in the Magic Kingdom, I entered the URL for this website and got a message that read like something "For the protection of you and your family, this site has been blocked." After a little tweaking, I figured out that any URL with the word "jew" in it was banned in Saudi Arabia. So, I would just go over to Town Hall to get my Jewish (gasp!) fix.

His earlier comments on customs searches for contraband items for air passengers inbound to Saudi Arabia were also eye-opening.

Schroedinger also links to an interesting post at Jihad Watch which details how multiculturalism in our schools -- including private ones -- is working hand in glove with the jihadist drive for global domination.

My son is now thirteen. He attends a private school, and he came home nearly in tears three weeks ago. While in his history class, his teacher was speaking about the KKK and mentioned that at that particular period in America's history, members of the KKK sincerely felt they were doing God's will just as the terrorists who have hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam believe they are doing God's will. Well, my son raised his hand and said something to the effect of, "Actually, Islam is not a religion of peace. Did you know that the Hadith" -- and he explained what that is -- "dictates that only three choices are acceptable for non-Muslims according to Islam?" He went on to explain the three choices were conversion, paying the non-Muslim tax, or death. At that point, his teacher said to him something of the effect of, "Telling vicious lies like that and spreading hatred for Muslims is exactly the same thing the Nazis did when they spread lies about Jewish people eating Catholic babies in order to spread hatred for Jewish people." My son sat in his chair, said nothing, and class proceeded. My son came home devastated.

This comes from a letter by a parent who has been studying Islam with his son. If you think our current war doesn't have a home front, think again.

Pot, meet Kettle.

You know a guy on your blogroll has hit the mother lode when you get emails from readers telling you about it! The subtitle comes from Hannes Hacker, but I also spotted this gem myself yesterday over at The Secular Foxhole. Blair points to a story about Noam Chomsky's utter hypocrisy concerning his personal finances versus his professed desire that all such concentrations of wealth be redistributed.

Chomsky favours massive income redistribution -- just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren," he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. (However, Chomsky did say that his tax shelter is OK because he and his family are "trying to help suffering people.")

Of course, some selectively astute fan of Chomsky might be tempted to draw a parallel here between Chomsky's enthusiasm for accumulating wealth and Ayn Rand's thoughts on Objectivists accepting government money under certain conditions.

So let's take a gander. Here's what Ayn Rand said.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

And here's what "The Noam" (Or should that be "the Noam of Cambridge"?) said.

When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio, he reverted to a "what else can I do?" defence: "Should I live in a cabin in Montana?" he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in "green" or "socially responsible" enterprises.

The difference lies in the context. In the former case, our government takes our taxes from us by force, leaving no other financial recourse but acceptance of such monies as are available. But, as the article points out, in the latter case, nobody is making Chomsky live as a private citizen in America. (And he also could always move to a kibbutz.) But apparently, principles are a frivolous game to Chomsky, and not something to be used as a guide to -- you know -- actual living or anything.

If we called this "Afghanistan's Gitmo" ...

... would the ACLU finally notice? Might Yale re-think its decision to admit a former Taliban official? Will The Noam of Cambridge come to the rescue with the millions he is raising to "help suffering people"? Will Moslems demonstrate the world over against this kind of abuse? Somehow, I doubt it. After all, a Koran wasn't rumored anywhere in this story to have been flushed down a toilet.

Amit Ghate points to a tear-jerker about a girl who was "married" into years of slavery and abuse at the age of four.

Gulsoma was then brought to a Kabul orphanage, where she lives today. She takes off her baseball cap and shows us a bald spot, almost like a medieval monk's tonsure, on the crown of her head where she was scalded.

She then turns her back and raises her shirt to reveal a sad map of scar tissue and keloids from cuts, bruises and the boiling water.

Haroon and I look at each other with disbelief. Her life's tragic story is etched upon her back.

Yet she continues to smile. She doesn't ask for pity. She seems more concerned about us as she reads the shock on our faces.

Read it all. Yes. It describes depravity, but it also describes the triumph of a little girl's spirit over all of it. This is what the current war is all about. Thank you for pointing that one out, Amit!

America's Least-Trusted Minority

I am one.

America's smallest and most persecuted minority, however, remains: the individual.

I am one of those, too.

Upheaval in the Name of Security?

For the second time in three days, I have read a story about people demanding the security of a steady paycheck while acting in a way that fundamentally undermines the stability of society, on which such security ultimately depends!

I am still waiting on a news reporter, however, to notice the irony.

Houstonians Fed up With Evacuees

This piece in the Houston Chronicle does a very good job of summing up public opinion in Houston seven months after Katrina.

"Whatever we want to do, these are American citizens, and they can stay here if they want," said [Harris County Judge Robert] Eckels. "The difference is, when they're here and they get into trouble, there are consequences. They put up with a lot of things in New Orleans that we don't put up with here."

And those last two sentences are the money quote for most of us.

A Double Dose of Yaron Brook

Diana Hsieh reports that Yaron Brook will appear on national television today and that his lecture, "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense" is available online.

Roundup

Bubblehead mentioned this blog in a roundup over at The Stupid Shall Be Punished.

What's in your wallet?

If you're Jennifer Snow's dad, it won't be a Capital One credit card. Thanks for the heads-up, Jennifer!

Brazillian Bennish

Bruno Raymundo reports that America's public schools have no monopoly on reeducation.

[My professor claimed that there] are different epistemologies (he was trying to say that there are different theories. I think.) and we have to take them into consideration, because our idea of liberty is different from an Arab's or a native Brazilian's. Even the oppressive Islamic regimes are, "in certain ways", expressions of liberty and democracy. [bold added]

And there's plenty more where that came from.

Moleskine Tablets

Toiler, a writer who blogs at Acid Free Paper, has an interesting piece on a celebrated bit of writing paraphernalia.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Changed "marathon" to "run". Yeah. I know. Not really that important, but mistakes like that really annoy me.... Bleh!

You can take it all the way to the bank, ...

... but you won't be laughing when you do.

Just on the heels of the Dubai Ports World brouhaha, we have news that a firm from Hong Kong (meaning an arm of the Chinese government) has been awarded a contract to -- get this -- scan oceangoing cargo from the Bahamas to the United States for nuclear materials!

I'm not quite ready to predict whether this particular instance of relying on a foreign power to protect our international borders will result in the same high dudgeon that the aborted Dubai Ports World deal did. (But I do lean towards forecasting a deafening yawn on the part of our yammering classes. Thanks for asking.)

What I will predict is this. Even if some of our politicians raise Cain over this, no one will say a peep about the fact that our reliance on China to "prevent" terrorist states from acquiring nukes in the first place is a big part of why we are having to scan cargo for nukes now.

While we're on the subject, let's take a quick gander at China's track record on the bigger issue of nonproliferation.

First, China hasn't been much help in getting those six-party talks going. Oh? Haven't heard of them? They're supposed to buy time for North Korea to build -- I mean prevent Kim Jong "Mentally" Il from getting the bomb, but peacefully. (We wouldn't want to seem pushy or anything, would we?) It seems the talks have been "stalled" since November. Just last July, I blogged that, "It took only a year and a month to beg North Korea to return to the table to discuss putting aside its nuclear ambitions!" That means that the talks either went on for four months (in which case they were remarkably unproductive, even by diplomatic standards), or they essentially "stalled" for four more!

But I digress. To give you an idea of just how helpful China, which borders North Korea and so has a vested interest in not getting nuked itself (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), we once asked China to pressure North Korea back to the negotiating table by cutting off its oil supply. The Chi-Comms refused, choosing the momentary safety of their pipeline over the long-term safety of their comrades. At best.

Nevertheless, the South Korean government, whose capitol really is in the bull's eye, is apparently at least as delusional as ours. In the face of the remarkable progress achieved in getting the six-party talks going and China's significant credit for same, here's what one South Korean official had to say.

"I don't know what kind of cooperation the North wants," [Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-moon] said. "But if it is related with its nuclear weapons programs, the six-party talks are the right framework, the place where it already declared giving up its weapons programs in return for corresponding measures."

I'll tell you what kind of cooperation they want: Exactly the kind you're giving them by not bombing them back to the stone age -- unless you give up more at an occasional six-party appeasement fest, in which case they'll accept the "diplomatic solution". In fact, a news outlet from his own country (which is obviously also available in America) notes that:

Describing North Korea as a state that is "out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)," an unnamed spokesman of the North's Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that the United States should cooperate with Pyongyang in nuclear issues instead of obstinately demanding Pyongyang's unilateral denuclearization.

And as for China's contribution to heading off the crisis in Iran, the following quote, in this context, says it all.

A spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, Qin Gang, said President Hu Jintao and Putin discussed Iran during Putin's two-day visit.

"China and Russia exchanged views and both sides agreed the Iran nuclear issue should be resolved through diplomatic means," Qin told reporters.

Hu and Putin agreed that "all the related parties should display flexibility and patience," Qin added. "China supports Russia's active efforts to appropriately resolve the Iran nuclear issue."

Flexibility? Like Iran being willing to develop sooner if we listen to some idiot at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and just hand over the uranium? Like America simply allowing a terrorist state to develop the bomb? And patience? Do I really need to say anything here?

But what, if anything, will our politicians say about China in the next few days? That a company from Hong Kong shouldn't be in charge of checking for nukes in cargo from the Bahamas.

Someone please prove me wrong.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 37

AP Called on Attack Piece

This Associated Press article by Jennifer Loven is getting skewered by the right-wing blogposphere for being a thinly-veiled attack piece masquerading as news. But the question that headlines this article at Editor and Publisher, "AP's Bush 'Straw Man' Story: News Analysis Or Unlabeled Opinion?", as well as its first two paragraphs, appears to punch a hole in the criticism.

Did a recent Associated Press story examining President George Bush's alleged tendency to use a "straw man" approach in his speeches cross the line from news to biased opinion? Or was it just a long-overdue, in-depth review of the president's public speaking approach?

The viewpoint, as often happens in Washington, depends on whose blog you are reading, and what you consider opinion and analysis. Still, the article by reporter Jennifer Loven sparked an interesting debate on the blogosphere, and in some newsrooms, over how such an examination of a public figure can cross the line from reporting to opining. Since the piece was not labeled a column, or even analysis, it raised some eyebrows as it veered into a sharp attack on Bush's use of such tactics.

But Power Line plainly admits that Bush uses the straw man frequently, noting that although it is a logical fallacy, it is a "time-honored rhetorical device". In fact, Power Line attacks the article for its biased reporting, and doesn't even use the word "opinion".

I looked into this because I realized that the AP article did report something factually correct: Bush does employ straw men. If the AP were being attacked for simply reporting a fact, that would be one thing. (And it would be unreasonable to demand that the story be labeled as an opinion piece.) But the piece is in fact an example of selective, biased reporting, which is another thing entirely. This is something that the AP can get away with if a reader drops the greater context in which the story occurs, as Editor and Publisher's Joe Strupp invites us to do when he offers the "news analysis" loophole at the start of his article.

Africa: "The World's Richest Continent"

In a long article about poverty as a man-made phenomenon in Africa, I found the following paragraph noteworthy.

In fact, Africa is quite rich. As the economist Walter Williams of George Mason University wrote, "In terms of natural resources, Africa is the world's richest continent. It has 50 percent of the world's gold, most of the world's diamonds and chromium, 90 percent of the cobalt, 40 percent of the world's potential hydroelectric power, 65 percent of the manganese, millions of acres of untilled farmland as well as other natural resources." What Africa needs is not "aid," but less corruption.

Confusing Apology with Advocacy

At first, I was glad to see, finally, an article that advocated privatization of the potable water industry, until I read this snippet.

My former colleagues at the Globalization Institute in London have released a report on the differences between the private and public provision of water around the world. They place much of the blame for the current problems on the very fact that 95% of the world's potable water is supplied by governments rather than by (properly regulated) private sector providers. Governments are inefficient at providing services, swayed all too easily by the desires of their political supporters, prone to corruption and even worse -- in many parts of the world -- do not have the simple competence (let alone capital) to operate a fully functional system. [link dropped, bold added]

Author Tim Worstall cites plenty of empirical evidence to support his contention that private industry can do what most automatically assume to be a function of the government, but in addition to the above parenthetical backing off from laissez-faire, he ends on this note: "We can't have just governments providing water and sanitation. Don't you realize it's all much too serious a problem to leave it to them?"

Both of these remarks leave unchallenged the Dickensian notion that a water company would poison its customers and run with the money, and that water companies must therefore be "properly regulated". This indicates a either a low estimate of his reader's intellect, or a failure to understand that capitalism is, in fact, self-regulating. I would have rather seen some ink devoted to this phenomenon (which explains why capitalism provides services better than governments, which need not survive by merit) rather than on constant apologies to the reader for even bringing the "c-word" up on World Water Day.

The World's Last True Blonde?

I have no strong preference for any one hair color, but I did find this article on blonde hair interesting.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Fixed a markup error and some typos.

A Stray Meme

I've got writer's block and that's on top of it being one of those rare days when no one thing merits enough attention for its own post, so I've decided to work on a meme I ran across recently. Usual deal here. I won't tag anyone, but I will link to anyone who picks up on the meme.

***

1: Black and white or color: How do you prefer your movies?

Black and white. This is for a couple of reasons. Although visually spectacular movies are made in color all the time, a good movie is much more than eye candy. So I first of all often find that I do not miss the color as much as I might from a still photograph or a painting. Second, I am having a hard time articulating exactly why, but I think that black and white cinematography differs from color in more than just its limited palette. Other aspects of the visual experience become more important and a skilled cinematographer can exploit these more fully without the distraction of color. (And this, rather than slavish adherence to mere "tradition" is, I think, why so many people object to colorizing the classics.)

2: What is the one single subject that bores you to near-death?

The day-to-day minutiae of the personal life of any given figure from pop culture.

No. I really don't care whom [name of actress or female vocalist here] is seeing now, whom she might marry (and will divorce if she does), who else's love child she's carrying, who her lesbian ex is, which cult she's busy popularizing at the moment, how much weight beyond what a healthy woman ought to weigh she lost last week alone by the latest fad diet, or which astrologer she sees.

In short, I am sick of small details about small people being treated as if they merit even one moment of my attention -- as if there isn't a whole wonderful, fascinating world populated by good, substantial, actual human beings out there that I'd rather be enjoying any aspect of during any fraction of a second spent having to attend to any of that drivel.

(Whew! Did that sound curmudgeonly enough? Bore me. Make me testy. What can I say?)

3: MP3s, CDs, Tapes or Records: what is your favorite medium for prerecorded music?

CDs. I like the mixture of versatility and permanence.

4: You are handed one first class trip plane ticket to anywhere in the world and ten million dollars cash. All of this is yours provided that you leave and not tell anyone where you are going... Ever. This includes family, friends, everyone. Would you take the money and ticket and run?

Sure. The round trip flight to Houston via Dallas ought to take three or four hours tops. My wife has accused me of spending more time than that reading the paper in the bathroom before! Our secret and my money are safe!

You did say, "Anywhere in the world," didn't you? A fool and his ten million smackers are easily parted.

5: Seriously, what do you consider the world's most pressing issue now?

The decline of respect for reason in the West. This philosophical crisis has worsened many problems (e.g., energy costs) and made many others possible (e.g., terrorism as a credible national security threat).

6: How would you rectify the world's most pressing issue?

By advocating better philosophical ideas to those who are willing to consider them. (What is needed is a philosophical revolution. What I am doing is obviously not enough, alone, but it compares in scope to joining the militia in an armed revolution.)

7: You are given the chance to go back and change one thing in your life; what would that be?

I would have led a more balanced life in high school. This would have made me more in touch with what I want in life much sooner, and probably would have allowed me to find the right career much earlier on. Fifteen years earlier on. Ugh!

8: You are given the chance to go back and change one event in world history, what would that be?

I would have prevented the birth of Immanuel Kant, "the father of the irrational", whose philosophy gave rise to much of what is wrong in the West today by thoroughly undercutting rational philosophy.

9: A night at the opera, or a night at the Grand Ole Opry? Which do you choose?

The opera. Hands down.

10: What is the one great unsolved crime of all time you'd like to solve?

I'd solve the Kennedy assassination -- but not before betting the ten million I won in question 4 (with whoever put all that loot up in the first place) that this would do nothing to shut up the constant din of conspiracy theories about same.

My solution would give me the satisfaction of knowing the answer and winning the easiest 20 million clams a man ever made.

11: One famous author can come to dinner with you. Who would that be, and what would you serve for the meal?

Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite columnists and author of at least four books on my shelves. I would, of course, serve his favorite food, fried chicken. And we could kick off our conversation by discussing the merits of his favorite city, Sidney, Australia, versus those of Melbourne, which is one of my favorites. (The two cities have a rivalry which reminds me a bit of that between Dallas and Houston, Texas.)

12: You discover that John Lennon was right, that there is no hell below us, and above us there is only sky -- what's the first immoral thing you might do to celebrate this fact?

The immoral is that which injures my life. What kind of a way to "celebrate" would that be? Silly question, that.

-- CAV

Around the Web on 3-22-06

Lost most of yesterday evening to unexpected contingencies and am running behind this morning, to this week's roundup will be on the short side....

"What's next, yellow?"

That's the question Willy Shake starts off with when he blogs on the British Royal Navy's recent decision to begin repainting its submarine fleet blue.

As unmanly as it might strike us at first, perhaps we submariners -- known for our innovativeness -- need to take a page from our USMC bastard step children brethren and "Adapt. Overcome."

One of the reasons for the change is that with the submarines appearing in warmer oceans a lot more often after the Cold War, a color that was harder to detect than black was needed.

And over at Molten Eagle, Vigilis has some further thoughts on the kinds of camouflage employed by warships.

And, Speaking of Attempts at Concealment

Ian Hamet has a very funny post up about comb-overs in mainland China.

[O]n that [first moderately windy] day, you will be confronted in the streets by masses of sad, bald-pated men with oily, foot-long strands of hair whipping about their heads, anchored just above the ears or, for the farther-gone, along the back of the skull.

I also like his comment on the likely origins of this apparently universal practice in the "face" culture of China.

Ayn Rand on Humor

Robert Tracy blogs some of Ayn Rand's extemporaneous answers to the following questions on the topic of humor, for the curious or for those too busy reading their own misconceptions into her works to notice that she is often very funny.

Humor doesn't play a major role in the lives of your fictional heroes. What is the role of humor in life? Do comedians have a value to an Objectivist? What does an Objectivist find humorous?

Go to Illustrated Ideas for the answers.

More on Smoking Bans

Jennifer Snow has a good post and thread over at her blog on smoking bans.

I don't understand it; I don't understand how anyone could want such a thing. Let me be clear: I hate smoking. I hate the smell of it, I hate how it makes me cough and gag when I breathe it, and I dislike the people that think they are entitled to smoking breaks when I'm not allowed to go to the bathroom before lunch. I think it's a filthy habit. But I will defend anyone's right to it, and smokers own public places just as much as nonsmokers do; everyone is taxed to provide for them.

Geography for Journalists

Hmmm. On second thought, that prescription comes off sounding like a course that has been watered down for a group of people who would probably flunk out of the real thing.... In any event, Lubber's Line thinks journalists reporting on the chances of New England getting a hurricane this year could use some, as and Andrew Dalton sounds like he'd probably agree.

In any event, I agree with Lubber's Line when he says the following.

Informing people they need to be prepared for the possibility of a big weather event, especially a hurricane, is important. I just don't like it when inaccurate information is added to sell a prediction.

Indeed, it defeats the whole purpose of overcoming the apathy of ignorance by inducing the kind of apathy that always greets Chicken Littles sooner or later.

The Islamization of Europe

Grant Jones has some interesting tidbits on Oriana Fallaci's The Force of Reason, specifically on her thoughts about the Islamization of Europe. He points to a very good review, from which he quotes.

How did Islam go from being a virtual non-factor to a religion that threatens the preeminence of Christianity on the Continent? How could the most popular name for a baby boy in Brussels possibly be Mohammed? Can it really be true that Muslims plan to build a mosque in London that will hold 40,000 people? That Dutch cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam are close to having Muslim majorities?

And I think he hit the nail on the head when he said, "A Mohammadan in Norway makes this interesting statement, 'Our way of thinking ... will prove more powerful than yours.' Actually, his form of anti-reason is much more powerful than that adopted by the West's post-modern left."

Caught on Film

Vigilis has posted a photo of me over at his blog reaching for a brewski while performing an alien autopsy. I will, of course, deny everything.

-- CAV