Around the Web on 8-31-06

Today's goal: terse, but still worthwhile.

Subman Dave takes a look at a case in New York where a man was arrested for making enemy broadcasts over American airwaves.

As any reasonable person knows, First Amendment rights to free speech aren't absolute. Besides the most obvious non-protected examples of obscene and libelous speech, there are other recognized exemptions, most notably in this case threats and sedition. I know the latter has seemingly fallen out of favor of late (how else can you explain groups that honestly support, advocate and reward mutinous action by members of our Armed Forces without consequence) and, coming from a foreign source the term "sedition" may not be strictly accurate, but should there be a compulsion for any government to allow open broadcast by its enemies? You can't fault Hezbollah for trying, but neither should one fault the U.S. government for putting a stop to it when discovered.

I mostly agree with this, although I would re-phrase the first sentence, replacing "aren't absolute" with "don't exist in a vacuum". And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is yet another example of why we ought to have a war declaration. (And now that I think of it, here's another: We can't prosecute treason without one.)

Isaac Schrodinger considers a case in Malaysia, which allows Moslems to be governed by Sharia, of a woman who left Islam. "The non-Muslims who welcomed dual laws likely did so for peace and harmony. What they really did is give Sharia the chance to entrench itself."

Cox and Forkum recently posted a cartoon which nicely summarizes the message we ought to be sending to the Middle East.


They also have posted their latest cover for The Intellectual Activist, along with some commentary on developments in Iran. I thank them for including my post, "Is the 'Doomsday Clock' stuck?" as an update and, of course, for all the extra traffic!

Mike N has been posting some really good stuff lately. Be sure to read "Government Worship", in which he critiques an article from the print edition of the Detroit Free Press called "Learn the right Katrina lesson."

[I]f you're thinking that the human disaster that was New Orleans is proof of governments' failure and inefficiency, you just get those thoughts out of your mind right now.

"...we had better accept that good government is essential and start looking forward to getting things right."

Good government to me means protecting people's individual rights. To sirs Witt and Stier it obviously means providing for people's needs, not rights. But what is meant by 'getting things right?'

And speaking of government-worship....

Diana Hsieh notes that California is one signature away -- the signature of a very inconsistent advocate of capitalism, to put it very charitably -- from socialized medicine.

As for the likelihood of a veto, the article also reports, "Schwarzenegger's office said it had no official position on the bill. The governor has said he would propose solutions to the state's health care crisis in his State of the State address next January if he is re-elected."

The very fact that Schwartzenegger can even appear to be testing the winds on an issue like this -- despite immigrating here to escape socialism -- doesn't inspire my confidence one bit.

Amit Ghate reports on a very good conference in Boston this October called "The Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response".

FEATURED SPEAKERS
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum
Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute
Flemming Rose, culture editor of Jyllands-Posten
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch
Peter Schwartz, author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America
John Lewis, assistant professor of history, Ashland University

Wow! That line-up is solid from top to bottom! He provides a link for those lucky souls who might get a chance to go.

The Intellectual Watchman reports on a new way to donate for those who would like to give to charity more often:

Goodsearch [is] a Yahoo-based search engine which will make a donation to a charity of your choice for every time you use it to search [and the] Ayn Rand Institute is one of the organizations you can select to donate to! Say no more!

Okay, then!

Oops!

The Undercurrent has posted portions of its September issue.

Martin Lindeskog has a nice post on Lee Sandstead's recent visit to Stockholm.

I learned plenty of things from Lee Sandstead's lectures on art. They gave me great inspiration to explore more works of art in the future. We are already planning for next year's event. It will be on art works displayed at the Furstenberg Gallery at the Gothenburg Museum of Art.

He includes a photo of Genius of Telegraphy.

Software Nerd laments the fact that our Founding Fathers did not discuss war as extensively as they did so many other aspects of government.

Unfortunately, there was no ... framework [like the Constitution and its supporting political theory] in foreign policy to guide government action. Consequently, the U.S. has acted with varying temporal rules, as suited the current mood of her democratic opinion or her government. It is not that the principles were wrong; rather, there were no principles.

I wonder whether he or the Kalamazoo Objectivist has read Peter Schwartz's The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest. After hearing a review of it, in which it was called "the 'Strunk and White' of foreign policy", I was intrigued and ordered it.

As it turns out, it's even cheaper than The Elements of Style, which I highly recommend!

John Stark wonders about an issue I saw quite awhile back on an "Idiot Bumper Sticker": will Katrina sink Bush in 2006?

[F]or the media, and much of "Blue America," a hurricane is just a way to try to score political points. Just the fact that they're wondering if it will "defeat" or "sink" Bush [in some weird, unspecified way] without mentioning the millions of people who are currently trying to kill us just strikes me as a huge non-sequitur. I can't believe that anyone can take these guys seriously, and it's one reason why I can't watch TV news.

His title asks, rhetorically, "Are they really this clueless?"

Bothenook (with whom I would have fought in World War II*) posts a hilarious email.

If you ever feel compelled to "mug" yourself with a taser, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one-second burst when you zap yourself. You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor. A three second burst would be considered conservative.

Chortle!

-- CAV

* Full results:

You scored as Poland. Your army is Poland's army. Your tenacity will form a concept in the history of your nation and you're also ready to continue fighting even if your country is occupied by the enemy. Other nations that are included in this category are Greece, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands. British and the Commonwealth 81% Poland 81% Finland 69% France, Free French and the Resistance 63% Italy 63% United States 56% Japan 50% Germany 44% Soviet Union 19% In which World War 2 army you should have fought? created with QuizFarm.com

The Anglophile in me is disappointed by having barely not been British in a tie-breaker -- but he takes solace in knowing that such a result is a legitimate British fate!

WWNBS (Except in Lebanon)

Via Matt Drudge, I have an update to a recent post about an incident in which a man who appears to be of Middle Eastern extraction was asked to refrain from wearing a tee shirt with Arabic script (which reads "We will not be silenced.") in an airport. This man, one Raed Jarrar (pictured at right in the same or a similar shirt), is now the subject of a report by Reuters, through which I found this blog post in which he details the incident.

Before I begin, let me reiterate where I stood on this incident upon first learning about it. I stand by this.

... Jarrar does not necessarily have the constitutional right to wear Arabic script. You can't say, "I have a bomb," at the airport -- in English for that matter. And you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. [As a clarification, the undecipherable script could, not unreasonably, be taken as an implied threat. Furthermore, Jarrar's post indicates that there may have been numerous calls made about the shirt.--ed] ...

In light of the fact that law enforcement are prohibited from expending their limited resources efficiently -- i.e., by profiling people who (like Jarrar) look like terrorists -- they have to do the next best thing: Stop anyone who acts suspiciously or looks like he might sympathize with terrorists. Ironically, had law enforcement profiling at its disposal, Jarrar probably could go into an airport with such a shirt on because everyone would know that he'd been checked out already. But this tool is unavailable and so, allowing such apparel not only runs the risk of distracting law enforcement, it also risks causing wary passengers to take matters into their own hands as they have twice very recently.

On further reflection, I have also realized that the one thing I have never heard come up at all in the domestic security debate has been the role that government respect for the right to property -- which has frequently been a misguided casualty of civil rights legislation -- could have in solving the dilemma Jarrar's case brings up.

Let's set aside for the moment the fact that, in a fully free society, commercial airports would be private property. The airlines (e.g., Jet Blue) themselves have the right -- whether the government chooses to recognize it or not -- to enforce dress codes if they wish, and to refuse service to anyone they wish on whatever basis, no matter how silly I or Jarrar might think it.

Thus, handled at certain points, what Raed wears in an airport would not fall under the government's purview at all. (And this would have the happy effect of not getting the government involved in what people choose to say on their shirts. While I can see why this was a concern, the less of this that happens, the better.) Ironically, he might find himself even less free to wear a tee shirt with Arabic script on it than before.

While we all have freedom of speech in America, we are not entitled to express our opinions through the use of someone else's resources. This is why I cannot simply plant a campaign poster in my neighbor's yard. This is why Jarrar should not have my tax money at his disposal (if he does) to finance his various foreign junkets. Nor I his money for my causes. Indeed, Jarrar himself seems to apprehend this point: He has closed the comments on his blog. This is no more an infringement of my freedom of speech than JetBlue's imposition of a rule against Arabic script would be an infringment of Jarrar's. If he objects to the notion that an airline can have "no Arabic script" as part of a customer dress code, then he has some explaining to do.

But even if our governmnet actually protected the right of a carrier like Jet Blue to bar certain forms of dress on its flights, all the above still does not mean that the government would properly just ignore suspicious-looking characters with an interest in domestic aviation. Not after the atrocities committed in the name of Islam on September 11, 2001.

Suppose a domestic airline, owned by a wealthy Middle Easterner, saw a market for Moslems (or Middle Eastern-looking folk) unable to fly on other lines or uncomfortable doing so. This airline would doubtless attract attention, as it should, from law enforcement, as would its customers. This would not excuse undue harassment, but during a war (which should be declared, by the way) there will always be some whose loyalty will reasonably come under question.

The account of the events at the airport in Raed Jarrar's blog posting appears to be factually correct to me . It is worth perusing for several reasons that will become apparent shortly. For one thing, it appears that law enforcement did not handle this encounter entirely well.

... I told him that I had checked in all of my bags and I asked him "why do you want me to take off my t-shirt? Isn't it my constitutional right to express myself in this way?" The second man in a greenish suit interfered and said "people here in the US don't understand these things about constitutional rights". So I answered him "I live in the US, and I understand it is my right to wear this t-shirt".

Then I once again asked the three of them : "How come you are asking me to change my t-shirt? Isn't this my constitutional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Arabic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Arabic script?" so inspector Harris answered "you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank". I said "but the message on my t-shirt is not offensive" ... [bold added]

If the "second man" really said what he did, he has no business working in or with law enforcement, even though he is arguably correct. The job of law enforcement personnel is to enforce the law whether or not those who break it know or understand it.

But yes, the green-suited thug is correct. For starters, every voter who has ever supported a bond issue so that the government could build an airport with confiscated funds -- rather than private industry with money it earned and it alone risked -- does not understand that it is not the government's purpose to redistribute wealth. Even if that is what the mob wants. Everyone who thinks that the government should randomly frisk harmless octogenarians at airports -- but not offend Moslems and Middle Easterners by casting a watchful eye their way -- does not understand that there is no "right" "not to be offended". And every American who, even with the best intentions, thinks that there should be laws that force businesses to not discriminate against some individuals -- does not understand that it is not the purpose of the government to make us associate with anyone against our wishes. And Jarrar either fails to understand or simply does not care about any of these things.

Let us give Jarrar the benefit of the doubt for a moment. Let us suppose that the ruckus he is raising -- with free publicity from al-Reuters -- is motivated by a sincere concern for freedom in America, including his own. He is, after all, a prominent member of an organization that considers the United States "war criminals". (I disagree with that assessment, but it is consistent with his apparent conviction that our government is not acting in the way it should.)

Then why was he in Lebanon recently, where he consorted with Syrians?

I am so impressed by the Syrian people's generosity in receiving Lebanese refugees. The Syrian government didn't even have to send food or supplies to the refugees because of the overwhelming grassroots support. When I was in the school/refugee camp, many neighbors were walking in with food and clothes. Neighbors donated mattresses, TVs, satellites [sic], money, and other aid.

Good thing the Syrian government didn't have to help the people displaced by Israel's defensive maneuvers! Their hands were pretty full, I understand, passing weapons from Iran to Lebanon so the Party of God could launch rockets from civilian neighborhoods or from behind UN observers -- and towards Israeli neighborhoods. How, exactly, was United States on the wrong side of this one -- to the extent it helped Israel?

And not only does Jarrar ignore the role that the Islamic states played in making the Lebanese miserable, he allows a bunch of bigoted ingrates to run him out of the refugee camp -- but not without relaying their accusations to the world.

I was called by two young Lebanese people, and they asked me whether me and the rest of the delegation visiting their shelter where coming from the US. I said yes. They said: "you better get the hell out of here unless you want us to make a scene". I tried to explain that we are the "good" Americans who are against the war, so they said go back home and change your government. "you can't come here visit us in a shelter that we were sent to because of your tax money and your bombs, and expect us to be nice to you". So me and the other Americans got the hell out of there.

What? Did he even attempt to explain how America stood for freedom "in better days"? That he was trying to "change [his] government"? And where was the fighting spirit he showed in the airport? Surely, if these lads understood the power of humble "peace" activists to "change their government" by peaceful means, they would have wanted their ears a bit longer. Or if they somehow thought them militarily that powerful, they would have feared them. In either case, methinks Jarrar left too hastily.

And then there's this gem:

It sucks to be an Arab/Muslim living in the US these days. When you go to the middle east, you are a US tax-payer destroying people's houses with your money, and when you come back to the US, you are a suspected terrorist and plane hijacker.

Well, that may be, Raed. But it apparently doesn't "suck" as much as it does to be an Arab/Moslem in an Arab/Moslem nation. Why else would, "tens of millions of Muslims immigrate to non-Muslim societies," as Dennis Prager recently pointed out? And why else would you return here, and feel safe enough to make national news speaking out against my government besides?

And why else would "We Will Not Be Silent" be silenced in a nation they are providing with so much support?

So Jarrar obviously does know that he is free to speak his mind here in America. The real question is why does he say what he does?

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 93

Mexican Electoral Court: No Fraud

No one -- save Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (aka AMLO) -- is claiming victory in the recent Mexican elections just yet, but it seems that the nation's top electoral court has declared the elections clean.

Mexico's top electoral court has rejected claims July's presidential election was riddled with fraud.

The judges said a partial recount of votes had not changed the original result, which gave narrow victory to conservative candidate Felipe Calderon.

Leftist candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has vowed to continue fighting an outcome he says was rigged.

And how will he "continue fighting"?

... Lopez Obrador has spoken of forming a parallel government to fight what he calls this electoral injustice.

Our correspondent says that is likely to mean a continuation of the massive street protests that have blocked much of the capital during the past month.

As AMLO said, "This is not about blocking highways." And if he and his minions aren't "blocking highways", then I suppose they aren't engaged in a "bloodless civil war", either.

College to Founder?

Noumenalself, after learning about Founders' College and doing a bit of digging, asks a whole lot of questions I wish I had thought of about Gary Hull's proposed new college in Virginia.

... [The Ayn Rand Institute] is clearly emphasizing the importance of changing the system from within the system, and thereby encouraging its students to acquire mainstream credentials and qualifications. It looks as if Founders wants to do the opposite. Rather than reaching out to the academic community, it wants to "ghettoize" Objectivist students and professors from the mainstream.

Of course since the school is not about Objectivism, but about creating quality education, perhaps it is unfair to compare it to ARI's mission. But it is still worth wondering why ARI would not offer unqualified support for a program that promised to offer such quality education. In the past, Yaron Brook has offered enthusiastic public support for schools like the Van Damme Academy. Why not this time?

The comparison to Van Damme is also telling in another way. When Lisa Van Damme began her academy, she did it after having proved her ability to develop a curriculum (in a homeschool setting). Likewise the LePort Schools began as successful Montessori schools before branching into elementary and middle-school education. Where is the proof that Founders College principals have established the same kind of track record? [links dropped]

And the bit about its curriculum being copyrighted sounds borderline hokie to me.

Read it all.

The Theocratic Right


Katherine Harris opens her mouth and removes all doubt, as Mark Twain might put it.

Sudden Jihad in San Fran?

Via Matt Drudge and LGF:

As many as 14 people were injured this afternoon by a motorist who drove around San Francisco running them down before he was arrested, authorities said.

Seven of those injured were in critical condition, police and firefighters said.

Authorities have identified the man who was arrested as Ohmeed Aziz Popal....

Wizbang reports that the name Ohmeed is common in Afghanistan.

This incident occurs on the same day that Glenn Reynolds reports that the thoroughness of the assimilation of Moslem immigrants into American culture is being debated. Reynolds quotes a Washington Post article which claims, perhaps somewhat hyperbolically, that they are not. He then links to a Moslem who claims that her coreligionists are well-assimilated, and quotes a correspondent who notes that "60% of all Americans of middle-eastern descent are college educated, compared to about 40% of all immigrants, and 25.9% of all U.S. citizens".

Reynolds lets him off the hook too easily. ("This seems right to me, and I hope it is.") Not only does Islam preach violence and domination of infidels as virtues in direct contradiction to America's separation of religion from government, but our colleges preach multiculturalism (i.e., manufacture excuses for the children of Moslem immigrants to hate the West and obey the worst dictates of their faith).

And who cares how much better off Moslem immigrants are economically? Has Glenn Reynolds forgotten that Osama bin Laden himself (not to mention many, many other terrorists) was from a very rich family?

Material prosperity does not determine future behavior. Men have free will and the ideas they hold affect what choices they will make. While American Moslems probably are better assimilated than those in Europe, they are teaching their children ideas from Islam that run directly counter to American ideals, and then these notions are reinforced by our broken, state-run educational system. There is more than ample cause for concern.

Awhile back, I discussed "Sudden Jihad Syndrome" further in this post.

Forced Conversions ...

... are, as I suspected, a time-honored part of the Islamic faith.

Is it me?

Or does the Vatican -- under its new Pope or perhaps with Islamofascism as a foil -- seem like it feels freer to indulge more openly in mystical lunacy these days?

There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in some US states. Advocates of the theory argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. Critics say it is a disguise for creationism.

A prominent anti-evolutionary and Roman Catholic scientist, Dominique Tassot, told the US National Catholic Reporter that this week's meeting was "to give a broader extension to the debate. Even if [the Pope] knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so." In 1996, in what was seen as a capitulation to scientific orthodoxy, John Paul II said Darwin's theories were "more than a hypothesis".

And as if that weren't enough, a Church official said in a recent radio interview that he thought Hitler and Stalin were possessed by the Devil.

Father Gabriel Amworth who is Pope Benedict XVI's 'caster out of demons' made his comments during an interview with Vatican Radio.

Father Amworth said: "Of course the Devil exists and he can not only possess a single person but also groups and entire populations.

"I am convinced that the Nazis were all possessed. All you have to do is think about what Hitler - and Stalin did. Almost certainly they were possessed by the Devil.

"You can tell by their behavior and their actions, from the horrors they committed and the atrocities that were committed on their orders. That's why we need to defend society from demons."

According to secret Vatican documents recently released wartime pontiff Pope Pius XII attempted a "long distance" exorcism of Hitler which failed to have any effect.

A "'long distance' exorcism"? What a howler!

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected typos.

Prager Catalogues Atrocities

Dennis Prager gives an eye-popping list of atrocities committed or sanctioned by Moslems -- be they in charge or living free by the grace of Western pluralism -- over at Townhall.com. Here's a sampler.

• The Islamic Republic of Sudan, in its attempt to force Arab/Muslim rule on the largely non-Arab and non-Muslim population of southern Sudan, has led to the killing of well above 1 million Christians and animists and black (i.e., non-Arab) Muslims, in addition to the widespread enslavement, rape and torture of those people.
• No major international Arab or Muslim organization has condemned the Sudanese government's mass murders that border on genocide.
• "A German court sentenced a Turkish man to more than nine years in jail yesterday for the 'honour killing' of his sister. . . . The murder of Hatun Surucu, 23, who was shot several times at a bus stop in a Berlin suburb last year, shocked Germany. . . . Forced to marry a cousin in Turkey as a young girl, Ms. Surucu later broke with her Turkish-Kurdish family in Berlin and was living independently with her 5-year-old son, to the intense disapproval of her relatives. . . . Public outrage at the murder was exacerbated when some teenage boys at a school with many pupils from immigrant families . . . reportedly openly applauded the killing, condemning the victim for having lived 'like a German.'" (The Guardian, UK, April 14, 2006)
• "We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the [Israelis]." -- words of a Canadian UN observer written days before he was killed by Israeli bombs (Ottawa Citizen, July 27, 2006)

He then asks, "Muslims who do not acknowledge the threat to civilization from within the Muslim world at least have two excuses -- fear for their lives or group solidarity. What excuses do non-Muslims have who deny this threat?"

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 92

The Secular Right

Robert Tracinski's interesting article, "The Secular Right", appears in this morning's edition of RealClear Politics. He begins by challenging the conventional wisdom that the left is the political home for the rational -- and by citing an ongoing debate at National Review Online about the role of religion on the right.

If a young person is turned off by religion or attracted by the achievements of science, and he wants to embrace a secular outlook, he is told -- by both sides of the debate--that his place is with the collectivists and social subjectivists of the left. On the other hand, if he admires the free market and wants America to have a bold, independent national defense, then he is told -- again, by both sides -- that his natural home is with the religious right.

But what if all of this is terribly wrong? What if it's possible to hold some of the key convictions associated with the right, being pro-free-market and supporting the war, and even to do so more strongly and consistently than most on the right -- but still to be secular? What if it's possible to reject the socialism subjectivism of the left and believe in the importance of morality, but without believing in God?

...

This is not the first time the right has had to search its soul on this issue--and it's high time they did so again, because now, more than ever, we need to discover what it would mean to have a secular right.

And after examining and handily disposing of that myth -- long held by the left and some on the right for different reasons -- Tracinski offers his alternative:

The lessons of history reveal the basic requirements set by man's nature for his survival, success, and happiness here on earth. That is the secular foundation for morality.

Today's academic philosophers -- steeped in the subjectivist dogmas of the left--have not been up to the job of grasping and explaining these lessons. But astute readers may recognize which philosopher I think was up to the job. My own defense of the secular right is based on the ideas of Ayn Rand, the novelist, philosopher, and famous defender of capitalism who originated a secular philosophy she called Objectivism. Ayn Rand's ideas are hardly a secret -- her novels still sell briskly, fifty years on--and the strangest part of the current debate about secularism and the right is that no one has yet seen fit to mention her.

The right needs to have a long, open, honest debate about the role of religion. We need it now more than ever because we are in the middle of a war with an enemy that is defined by his religious fervor and by his attempt to make his religion dominate the "public square," to borrow a catchphrase from the religious right. If we don't understand the real nature and value of Western, Enlightenment secularism, then we can't fully understand what is at stake in this clash of civilizations, and in the long run, we won't know how to win it.

It will be interesting to see what reaction this gets from the conservative movement: Even a deafening silence will count as a reaction, although it will perhaps bode worst for the state of the American public debate. On the bright side, it is already a coup on Tracinski's part just to have been able to discuss the issue of religion as a foundation for morality and politics so openly in such a broad forum.

One thing about the article may give some Objectivists pause: Tracinski casts himself part of the "secular right", which might seem to be an endorsement of conservatism or, worse, Libertarianism. But I think Tracinski makes it clear that his use of the term "secular right" refers to his support of secular, Enlightenment ideas. Furthermore, his explicit endoresement of the philosophy of Ayn Rand sets him apart from the Libertarian movement, which completely evades the necessity of an intellectual foundation for its stated goal of promoting "liberty". I would also point out that in the context of the demise of the left as a viable political alternative, the term "right" nearly stands as shorthand for "open to debate" anyway.

I think that the article is an excellent invitation to the brightest and best in the secular part of the political right to consider learning about and embracing a solid intellectual defense -- Ayn Rand's -- for their political values, and a long-overdue challenge from within its ranks to the dominance of the religious right over the only portion -- the left is dead -- of the body politic still open to intellectual debate.

Ayn Rand at Townhall.com

And through the HBL, I got wind of this article at the conservative site, Townhall.com on "Witchdoctors and Thugs", in which Alan Reynolds draws imperfectly upon Ayn Rand's somewhat famous duo of Attila and the Witch Doctor. For the curious, I excerpt from the origin of this phrase, 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)

Two favorable mentions of Ayn Rand at widely-read political web sites within a week! It may not seem like much, but of such apparently small gains is progress measured on the intellectual front in the battle for freedom.

Ayn Rand in USA Today

Via Objectivism Online, I learned that in 2002, Ayn Rand featured prominently and positively in an article in USA Today, although the article incorrectly cites the Atlas Society (rather than the Ayn Rand Institute) as a go-to site for information on Ayn Rand's ideas.

What's Wrong with the Left

Andrew Dalton nails it.

Here we have real religion, medieval in both its scope and intensity, a religion whose adherents vow to dominate the world by unlimited force if necessary. This is a seriousness of religion that, in a medieval Christian context, likely would have caused the current Pope to be labeled a dangerous backslider and liberal. And what has been the Left's response to this threat?

Suddenly, this band of 7th Century savages has become the misunderstood and oppressed "Other" -- in need of "understanding" and appeasement in order to atone for the sins that we, the West, have allegedly committed. ("Understanding" in this context is a weasel-word for non-judgmental acceptance; that is, a blanking out of real cognition, and a surrender to politically correct dogma.) But the leftists want to eat their cake and have it, too: Muslims are merely venting their rage at their racist colonial oppressors; but the American religious conservatives (who are devoutly religious only by a contemporary European, not historical, standard) are both sincere and somehow the most dangerous thing in the world since Hitler's tanks rolled into Paris.

This is a perfect example of what I meant a moment ago when I said, "[T]he left is dead".

A Year Ago Today

Katrina struck New Orleans. Of all the recent commentary about this event, what led up to it, and its aftermath, I like Mike's the best. This comes from a review of the documentary Surviving Katrina, which he recently viewed.

All in all, the documentary shows that all three levels of government failed at the task of disaster prepardness, and relief. I was a little disappointed though, that the question "Should the government be in the business of disaster prepardness and relief?" was never asked. It is just assumed that such is the government's natural role. But Charity Hospital had lost power and for several days staff were hand ventilating some of the critical patients. When it became clear that the government-at any level- wasn't going to transfer them to another hospital, they appealed to CNN who did a report. Seeing the report a private air-lift ambulance company volunteered its services and quickly transported the patients to other hospitals. To me, the the utter incompetence of government compared to the efficiency of private enterprise was glaringly obvious. Yet it is the government we are told to depend on. It makes no sense. [bold added]

I have not seen that question asked anywhere but in Objectivist circles, and yet it it the very question that needs asking the most.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected references to the USA Today article, which is from 2002.

Electoral College in Danger

There's a very informative piece by Pete du Pont in Opinion Journal that discusses the latest effort by the left to subvert our system of checks and balances in favor of mob rule. What he describes is yet another attempt to do away with the Electoral College. Unfortunately, this one is somewhat more cunning that past efforts: It could get around the need to amend the Constitution if successful.

[L]ast week the California Senate passed legislation to award the state's Electoral College votes to the candidate who has received the most popular votes nationally -- whether Californians chose him or not. A similar bill passed the Assembly on May 30, so it will soon be up to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign or veto the bill. Such a bill also passed the Colorado Senate in April, part of a national [effort] to change the way we choose our presidents. The mandate doesn't take effect until enough other states sign on to provide a majority of electoral votes. If it were in effect in 2004, George W. Bush would have taken California's 55 electoral votes, even though John Kerry carried the state by a margin of nearly 10%.

It is an odd idea, an "interstate compact" switching the Electoral College votes of member states from their state's vote winner to the national vote winner. And the direct election of presidents would be a political, electoral, and constitutional mistake that would radically change America's election system.

Du Pont then goes on to do a good job of explaining how this change would effectively make the presidential race into what I would call a "race for national mayor" -- by placing too much emphasis on urban constituencies. He ends on the following note.

One wonders if the direct election of presidents is really the beginning of an effort to bring national government under the control of large and liberal states. Common Cause, a Washington-based lobbying group that describes itself as "promoting open, honest and accountable government," argues "how neatly it fits with American tradition." But it doesn't. It contradicts our constitutional republic's state and federal government sharing of powers. Choosing presidents is one of our states' powers, and we should not remove it to begin a centralized national American government.

Du Pont is correct, but I would like to have seen him cite the work of Alan Natapoff, who actually proved (as outlined in "Math against Tyranny") that, despite our departure from the states choosing Electors who are not nominally committed to any candidate, the Electoral College still serves a useful function: It actually preserves the voting power of the individual.

Don't be fooled by the demagoguery of Common Cause. The Electoral College is not just some quaint anachronism of the early days of our Republic. It is a surprisingly important and effective part of the system of checks and balances that protects our freedom from pure democracy.

-- CAV

Updates

7-28-10: Updated a link.

Quick Roundup 91

Ugh!

I was under the weather big time yesterday, so didn't make my usual Sunday post or attend to comments until this morning. It was either dehydration or something I ate for brunch.

In any case: I'm back, baby!

The Newest "Crunchy Conservative"

The merger between the environmentalists and the religious right just got a big boost. Pope Benedict XVI has recently declared that damage to "the environment" endangers "the poor".

The world "is exposed to a series of risks created by choices and lifestyles that can degrade it," the leader of the Roman Catholic Church said in his Sunday sermon given at his summer residence of Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome.

"Damage to the environment makes the life of the poor on Earth particularly unbearable," the pope said, calling on all Christians to take care of the earth and not deplete its resources, sharing them in solidarity.

The pontiff's call came a few days before Christian associations celebrate in Italy on September 1 a "day for the safeguarding of Creation".

No word yet on whether the Pope plans to excommunicate God if Ernesto ploughs through that largest American "wetland", the Everglades, as is apparently planned.

An Oldie but a Goodie

Through a blog I recently stumbled upon and look forward to becoming more familiar with, The Kalamazoo Objectivist, I learned of a really good article (minus an error concerning the origin of individual rights) about what the Islamic call to murder Americans really means.

You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American. So I just thought I would write to let them know what an American is, so they would know when they found one.

An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani, or Afghan. An American may also be a Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them choose.

An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American is from the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each man and woman to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need. When Afghanistan was overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan. The best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best athletes.

Americans welcome the best, but they also welcome the least. The national symbol of America welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed.

These in fact are the people who built America. Some of them were working in the Twin Towers in the morning of September 11, earning a better life for their families. [I've been told that the people in the Towers were from at least 30, and maybe many more, other countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.]

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and every bloodthirsty tyrant in the history of the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

So look around you. You may find more Americans in your land than you thought were there. One day they will rise up and overthrow the old, ignorant, tired tyrants that trouble too many lands. Then those lands, too, will join the community of free and prosperous nations.

And America will welcome them. [bold added]

The tenet that non-Moslems must convert, submit, or die is what makes this evil religion into a suicide cult.

A note on attribution: In an effort to learn more about the "Australian dentist" who is commonly credited with this excellent piece, I learned instead that Peter Ferrara, an associate law professor at George Mason University, wrote the piece, which was originally published in National Review in 2001, and then gave permission to reproduce it provided his name and affiliation were attached.

"Converted" at Gunpoint

As if we need any more proof that Islam is at war with the best within us -- our considered, rational judgement -- Fox News reporter Steve Centanni and cameraman Olaf Wiig were "converted" to Islam at gunpoint during their imprisonment by devout Moslems near Israel.

Since leaving the faith is punishable by death, it is clear that Moslems -- whose silence on this act I take as sanction -- really don't give a damn about whether someone understands the tenets of their faith. They care only about being able to tell people what to do.

Along those lines, Glenn Reynolds also brings up the following good point on what episodes like this mean regarding journalism from Moslem lands:

Plus this: "I’m glad these guys are safe and free. I wish them well. But I hope there will be some attention paid by Fox and other media to the way in which kidnappings and similar threats coerce and intimidate journalists, and may influence their coverage."

You can't hire Moslems as stringers and you can't trust Moslems not to force regular journalists to lie.

Would someone please tell me why our news organizations "report" from Moslem territory at all?

Nancy Pelosi Stumps for Republicans

If the Republicans still have a grain of sense left, they will make sure this gem by Nancy Pelosi appears in various campaign spots this November: "Anybody who's ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me." (second page)

Iran to United States: "Kick me!"

Iran's president:

"No one can deprive a nation of its rights based on its capabilities," Ahmadinejad said in his speech to inaugurate the heavy water project.

Not that I agree with Ahmadinejad that just because Iran can start up a reactor in order to create fissile material that it has the right to. But he does apparently agree with me that the United States has the right to use its ability to flatten large swaths of his territory.

I say we should take him at his word.

Good Site Name

Reader Adrian Hester is right: "Kermitage" is a great name for a site about The Muppets!

-- CAV

"But I didn't shout 'Fire!'"

In a recent comment, Software Nerd (who has a couple of good recent posts up) brought my attention to an interview with an Iraqi "peace" activist who was asked to cover up a tee shirt that had Arabic script on it -- that he was wearing to the airport.

RAED JARRAR: I made it back to the United States in a very easy way. In fact, the incident that happened in JFK was not related to my trip, because I went back to D.C. I spent a day in D.C. Then I took the bus to New York. I spent a couple of days in New York. There was an event there. Then I was supposed to take my airplane, my Jet Blue airplane from JFK to Oakland in California last Saturday. So I went to the airport in the morning, and I was prevented to go to my airplane by four officers, because I was wearing this t-shirt that says "We will not be silent" in both Arabic and English. And I was told by one of the officials that wearing a t-shirt with Arabic script in an airport now is like going to a bank with a t-shirt that reads, "I am a robber."

AMY GOODMAN: That's what the security said to you?

RAED JARRAR: Yeah. I was questioned by four officials from -- I think some of them were from Jet Blue and others were maybe policemen or FBI. I have no idea. I took their names and badge numbers, and I filed a complaint through ACLU against them, because I asked them very directly to let me go to the airplane, because it's my constitutional right as a U.S. taxpayer and resident to wear a t-shirt with Arabic script. And they prevented to let me exercise this right, and they made me cover the script with another t-shirt.

AMY GOODMAN: So they said you could not fly if you wore your t-shirt that said, "We will not be silent"?

RAED JARRAR: Yes. They said that very clearly. [bold in quoted remarks added]

The bit about the content of the tee shirt's Arabic script is a deliberate attempt to distract the reader from the real issue, which was the language used on the shirt. By some bizarre coincidence, it happens to be the same language used to incite bombings of airplanes.

Gosh. Do you think that might have been why Jarrar was stopped?

Completely omitted is whether perhaps Jarrar did other things (intentionally or not) to draw the attention of law enforcement. Also omitted is the fact that Jarrar does not necessarily have the constitutional right to wear Arabic script. You can't say, "I have a bomb," at the airport -- in English for that matter. And you can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Goodman and Jarrar are implicitly making the following disingenuous argument: "But he didn't shout 'Fire!' He just said, 'The theater is on fire.' in a very loud voice." It seems that years of relying on legal technicalities to chip away at individual rights have caused legalistic thinking to permeate every echelon of the far left.

In light of the fact that law enforcement are prohibited from expending their limited resources efficiently -- i.e., by profiling people who (like Jarrar) look like terrorists -- they have to do the next best thing: Stop anyone who acts suspiciously or looks like he might sympathize with terrorists. Ironically, had law enforcement profiling at its disposal, Jarrar probably could go into an airport with such a shirt on because everyone would know that he'd been checked out already. But this tool is unavailable and so, allowing such apparel not only runs the risk of distracting law enforcement, it also risks causing wary passengers to take matters into their own hands as they have twice very recently.

Contrast Jarrar's defensive tack of immediately making a federal case out of this simple request to the following quote: "I hate what people who look like me are doing, and understand that special care is their fault."

Now ask yourself which of these men really cares about peace and freedom.

-- CAV

A Metastatic Smoking Ban

One of the first things I remember learning when I began to study economics in college was the truism, "controls breed controls". In other words, one example of government interference, like price controls, would cause a problem like shortages, which would then provide the government yet another excuse to grab more power for itself in the name of "fixing" the problem -- the one that it created in the first place.

Today, in the Houston Chronicle, I saw that sometimes it isn't even necessary for the government to grab more power. Sometimes, a segment of the population will foolishly agitate for it to do so.

A push to extend Houston's smoking ban to bars and other workplaces gained momentum Wednesday when the Greater Houston Restaurant Association announced its support for a citywide ban and Mayor Bill White said he thinks most residents support that move.

The association's endorsement came one day before a City Council public health committee plans to hear testimony about the effects of secondhand smoke. That meeting, scheduled for this afternoon, is the first of two hearings on whether to broaden the city's existing ordinance, which prohibits smoking in dining areas of restaurants but allows it in bars.

"We want to make sure that (the ban) is fair across the board," said Carl Walker, president of the Restaurant Association and owner of Brennan's of Houston. "Let's just don't focus on restaurants only."

That position is new for the group; last year, it supported the city's push for a partial ban. But without a comprehensive ban, bars have a competitive edge over restaurants, Walker said.

Since the ban likely will be strengthened in some way, Walker said, he and other restaurant owners would prefer it apply to all food and drink establishments, even if that means patrons in the bar areas of their restaurants no longer are allowed to smoke. [bold added]

Never mind that there is no such thing as a "fair" intrusion of inappropriate government force into our daily affairs. Never mind that these very businessmen originally opposed this silly ordinance. Never mind that a better way to put themselves on an equal footing with bars would be to repeal the smoking ordinance altogether. Never mind that smoking, entering a smoke-filled room, and allowing people to smoke in a business establishment are all voluntary activities. And never mind that you are helping the spread of the cancer of government meddling.

Far better, apparently, is to simply accept the premise that the government can run your businesses. And then compound cowardice with complicity.

Houston's business community is the backbone of this city and has often in the past taken the lead in effecting meaningful social change. But this episode is shameful, to say the least.

-- CAV

Around the Web on 8-24-06

This week, I came up with the novel idea of saving interesting links as I encountered them during the week, rather than knocking myself out finding everything at once. My reward? Some of this may look like old news. Strange thing, the blogosphere....

Yeah. This is about right.

Cox and Forkum illustrate perfectly what the notions of "carrot" and "stick" mean nowadays.


This reminds me of a link I saw at The Drudge Report the other day. It was something like "Iran All Talk". Had new intelligence shown Iran's nuclear blustering to be just some big, elaborate ruse? Of course not. Instead, it was somehow "news" that Iran was not going to agree to all the "demands" we made of them during negotiations and then made us wait for an answer at its convenience!

Zach Oakes is back!

Just as I was beginning to wonder whether Oakes had decided to stop blogging, my RSS reader tells me otherwise.

Lindeskog to Cover Swedish Vote

Martin Lindeskog will help Pajamas Media cover the upcoming Swedish elections.

Huh? The Pirate Party?

No wonder he's not voting! Either way, you'd have to say, "Arrrrrrrrgh!"

Israel's "Nuclear Navy"

Willy Shake debunks a misleading headline about the Israel's recent purchase of two new submarines from Germany ("Israel Buys Nuclear Subs") and invites us to think more ... deeply (groan!) ... about the story.

I should have known better--i.e. that the media would be inaccurate and misleading. What you learn if you read past the sensational headline (or if you check other news sources) is ... well, further deception--they want to emphasize that these two new subs could/migh/possibly/perhaps/theoretically carry nuclear missiles.

What they miss, however, are the significant strategic implications outside of the fact that these boats can shoot nukes. I'm talking about discussions such as this perceptive insight over at Bubblehead's blog.

I heard of this through Matt Drudge recently, but it didn't even occur to me that some newspaper might actually call the subs "nuclear".

Hmmm. Never overestimate the objectivity of the news media.

Nearly a Year Ago

Time flies, unless, apparently, your life gets turned upside-down by a catastrophe like the government-enhanced disaster of Hurricane Katrina -- and the government-impaired recovery therefrom.

Most of my ties to the affected area are to New Orleans (which has gotten the lion's share of the media attention, too), but my home state is Mississippi. As a child, I remember our family vacations to its Gulf Coast, including one memorable trip to Ship Island. I haven't been to MIssissippi's coast since the storm, but this collection shows you -- even a year later -- exactly what Governor Barbour meant when he called this "our tsunami". (HT: Brendan Loy)

The Useful Idiot: A Prototype

Via Babalu Blog comes an example of what our "educational" system encourages that has to be read to be believed.

With such wonderful additions to the world, why vilify Fidel any longer? What's a little suppression of political dissent when people can get treatment for diabetes? What are a few innocent human rights violations when people have access to locally grown produce without toxins? What's a little communism when Cuba is contributing less to global climate change than the rest of us?

I think it's high time we lure Fidel away from Cuba and help him paint the White House red. Health and vegetables will more than make up for his $900 million compensation.

So while too many of us are busy awaiting his demise, we ought to be helping Fidel recover from his illness. We could bring him to the U.S. and give him access to our medical system. Well, come to think of it, the HMO's would probably refuse to cover the treatment.

And this apparatchick wannabe would probably call this example of his ideas put into action, "free plastic surgery -- especially for AIDS patients!"

Two by Alexander Marriott

I've only gotten to read the first of these so far, but as Blair reports, Alexander Marriott has recently made two lengthy posts. I have already read and enjoyed the one about conspiracy theories. I look forward to reading about Gary Kasparov's foray into Russian politics.

Good Movie Review

Blair also reviews a movie, Lost City, about a Cuban family torn apart by the revolution.

Amit Ghate...

... has a nice post on "Selfishness and Self-Defense", if you haven't seen it already.

Hitlericious?

Thomas Sowell recently asked:

What kind of people provide a market for videotaped beheadings of innocent hostages? What kind of people would throw an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise liner into the sea, simply because he was Jewish? What kind of people would fly planes into buildings to vent their hate at the cost of their own lives?

He forgot one: "What kind of people would open (let alone attend) a restaurant called 'Hitler's Cross'?"

According to Reuters:

"We wanted to be different. This is one name that will stay in people's minds," owner Punit Shablok told Reuters. "We are not promoting Hitler. But we want to tell people we are different in the way he was different."

Different? I'd say. Perhaps Shablok was inspired by the way Hitler's Panzer divisions consumed Europe, hoping customers do the same with the food served at the restaurant. Or maybe Shablok was impressed with Hitler's innovative use of ovens? Or perhaps not caring how this would offend the Jews of Mumbai, Shablok simply wanted the publicity that would be caused by the Fuhrer uh ... I mean furor.

Nick Provenzo asks, "What's next? Himmler's Death's Head Bistro? Quisling's Croissants & Pastries? Goering's Gelatos?"

As for me, I can't add anything to this, either!

Fidel Castro Death Watch

Via Babalu Blog come two posts that speculate on Fidel Castro's condition based on recently-released photographs of the ailing "leader". The two make different assumptions on whether the photos are authentic, but no matter which way you cut it, it ain't good for Fidel.

First, Inside Surgery sticks with its diagnosis of metastatic intraabdominal cancer.

Musings: he fails what physicians call the "foot of the bed test". I have unfortunately seen it all too often when patients are dying and have lost their spark of vitality, their sense of optimism and connectedness with life. Patients particularly with end-stage cancer have (for lack of a better term) a way of turning inward as they contemplate their mortality and their approaching death. Understandably, most people are very subdued.

But a commenter there thinks that at least some of the photos were faked!

First, notice in the photo above that the Granma newspaper that Fidel Castro is shown displaying has a black logo and a black headline. The problem is that Granma uses a bright red logo, and often uses color in other places on the front page.

The second photo, to the right, shows the actual front page of yesterday's Granma, with a red logo and a bright red headline.

Why the discrepancy?

And if the photos are fake, how bad Fidel must really look!

Rappin' on Overpopulation

The title of this Andrew Dalton post made me burst out laughing.

-- CAV

What Kind of People?

This Thomas Sowell column does an excellent job of concretizing the unworldy motivations of our enemy and their practical results, for the benefit of anyone who might want to remain alive and continue enjoying his life. (For those who may have followed a link to a Thomas Sowell column from the comments of a recent post, this is a different column.)

[A] once-proud, dynamic culture in the forefront of world civilizations, and still carrying a message of their own superiority to "infidels" today, is painfully visible to the whole world as a poverty-stricken and backward region, lagging far behind in virtually every field of human endeavor.

There is no way that they can catch up in a hundred years, even if the rest of the world stands still. And they are not going to wait a hundred years to vent their resentments and frustrations at the humiliating position in which they find themselves.

Israel's very existence as a modern, prosperous western nation in their midst is a daily slap across the face. Nothing is easier for demagogues than to blame Israel, the United States, or western civilization in general for their own lagging position.

...

What kind of people provide a market for videotaped beheadings of innocent hostages? What kind of people would throw an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise liner into the sea, simply because he was Jewish? What kind of people would fly planes into buildings to vent their hate at the cost of their own lives?

These are the kinds of people we are talking about getting nuclear weapons. And what of ourselves?

Do we understand that the world will never be the same after hate-filled fanatics gain the ability to wipe whole American cities off the face of the earth?

This is not a perfect analysis by any means, but I think it does one of the better jobs of succinctly conveying to the average, implicitly-rational, this-worldy American an incredible truth he may not fully grasp: There are people so devoted to mysticism out there that they would rather kill or hurt us than benefit from our obviously superior knowledge. Furthermore, we will have to countermand our natural tendency towards benevolence for a time in order to make them stop.

-- CAV

(HT: Chris Gaudet)

Go East, Young Man

Founders' College, which a group of Objectivists including Gary Hull hopes to start by fall of 2007, seeks to:

... focus ... on the great ideas and significant events that shape both an individual's life and entire civilizations. Many of today's colleges provide an indiscriminate smorgasbord of random liberal arts courses that are lacking in content, but that are packed with propaganda. Their bored students leave with an "education" that is both empty and impractical. At Founders, we focus on ideas that will help you better understand yourself and the world around you. We give you the thinking and communication skills to excel in any profession.

Today, via email, I have learned that the group has announced its location. I reproduce the message in full below.

Founders College Announces its Location in Virginia

Founders College has contracted to open its Fall 2007 operations* in Campbell County, Virginia, in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

The four-year, residential liberal arts college plans to locate on the site of the Merritt Hutchinson Estate, a luxurious resort and conference center situated between Roanoke and Lynchburg, Virginia. The property's extensive facilities integrate the intimacy of a gracious country manor with the sophistication of old-world opulence and modern comfort. The future campus includes over 1100 acres of rolling hills and lakes, and numerous recreational options such as fishing, swimming, hiking, golf and equestrian.

"After months of extensive research, we chose Virginia primarily because of its unparalled business-friendly environment," says Tamara Fuller, Founders' Chief Strategy Officer. "Founders College will provide students with an exceptional education that sparks a lifelong passion for knowledge. We wanted our choice of location to honor the uniqueness of that vision."

For more information on Founders College, visit www.founderscollege.com.
For media inquiries, contact Sarah Francomano [info available upon request --ed]

*Disclaimer: The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia has authorized Founders to use "College" in conjunction with its post-secondary education affairs and business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Founders College has filed an Institutional Application Certification Form with the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia. Founders College also has entered a contract for the purchase of land and buildings -- the Merritt-Hutchinson Estate in Campbell County,Virginia -- to serve as its campus, subject to zoning and other permits of the County Government. In accordance with Virginia Code Annotated Section 23-276.4, until the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia issues a Certificate to Operate, Founders College may not solicit or accept the enrollment of students.[some formatting and link added]

I'd heard a rumor that it was going to be elsewhere, so this comes a surprise to me.

This effort is very good news. More updates as I get them.

-- CAV

The War and Public Opinion

I have encountered two interesting articles on where public opinion in the West (the United States, Great Britain, and Israel in particular) is going on the matter of the war.

In the first, Arnold Kling sees the public rejecting what might loosely be termed the "conventional wisdom" of multiculturalism and diplomacy (i.e., of pretending that there remains any constructive basis for "negotiating" with an enemy for whom negotiation is plainly a military tactic) and moving towards what he sees as one of two centers of gravity.

And what notions is the public rejecting?

• The world's Muslims share our desire for peace and democracy.
• Equal-opportunity passenger screening at airports is a better policy than profiling. [As witness the recent "passenger mutiny" on an airplane he starts off with. --ed]
  
• The United Nations is the world's conscience and policeman.
• The "international community" will deal with Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.
• It is possible for the United States to bring about a constructive transformation of Middle East politics, either through diplomatic or military initiatives.

And, further, where is public opinion heading?

1. The Middle East is a hopeless cauldron of hatred. We should focus on homeland security, stay out of the Middle East, and have as little interaction with the Muslim world as possible; or
2. A major war is inevitable, so that we need to get ready for it. Nothing else will stop Iranian aggression, and nothing else will stifle the funding, sponsoring, and glorification of terrorists.

Kling sees the second position as more natural for Britain and Israel, for whom the option of retreat is far less plausible.

This position becomes more interesting for Britain in light of the second piece, by Thomas Lifson of The American Thinker, who cites several interesting results from recent opinion-polling there.

• Almost three quarters of the British public are now convinced that we are fighting a new world war against extremist Islamic terrorists....
• [T]he public is convinced that the key to winning this new global war against terrorists lies in a much more aggressive foreign policy, as well as in severe reductions in civil liberties in Britain.
• When offered the choice of maintaining the close relationship with the US, switching to closer links with Europe or an unspecified third course of action (which could be an independent foreign policy), the public turned en masse against America. [bullets added]

What to make of the two apparently contradictory "poles" from the first article and the mixed bag from the second?

Recall that I have repeatedly complained about the foot-dragging by the Bush administration in this war. We are not seeing either an energetic prosecution of this war or a decisive victory, both of which the West can achieve. The public wants both, but is being confused by the war effort so far since, such as it is, it is seen by many as the "alternative" to withdrawal. Those who understand that Bush is not fighting effectively -- or whose backs are closer to the wall -- will see that a fiercer fight is in order. Those who think that fighting has been tried and failed -- or who do not yet realize that our meddlesome enemy is not going to go away simply because we withdraw -- will want to pull out. (And, probably along with the heavy influence of the anti-American left in Britain, Bush's indecisiveness likely helps explain Britain's turning away from America.)

Ironically, more decisive action by Bush would have either helped make (1) more apparent by now or made (2) more realistic by now. Instead, the public vacillates and may yet have to learn the hard way that (1) must be adopted.

In this sense, some of the arguments of the "anti-Bush Objectivists" seem vindicated, particularly this one, by Craig Biddle:

Here, in essence, is what Bush has done. By packaging a permission-seeking, capitulating, restrained, dovish foreign policy with lip service to an independent, firm, do-what-needs-to-be-done, hawkish one -- he has removed the concept of the latter from the foreign policy debate. Kerry, unwittingly, would put it back on the table; this is why I will vote for him.

"Fortunately", we have an enemy of obdurate-enough implacability that he will make sure we eventually understand that we must render him unable to act against us sooner or later.

Interestingly, it not just Bush's foot-dragging in this war that is obscuring issues of vital importance. There is also the fact that civil liberty concerns -- which are quite valid -- are apparently increasingly falling on deaf ears in Britain and (perhaps to a lesser extent) in America. This is a direct result of years of subversion of civil liberties by the left to the cause of attacking our civilization, whether it be by freeing criminals on technicalities, whining about allegations over whether Korans are being "abused" in a detention facility, or ignoring common sense in choosing whom to scrutinize most carefully at airports.

In the one case, war is being made to look like diplomacy-cum-welfare. In the other, civil liberties are made to took like coddling the enemy. In both cases, the public desperately needs a clearer understanding of the proper role of government -- the protection of individual rights.

Only then can we see that "alternatives" (1) and (2) are two pieces of the correct answer: that we must decimate our enemy for the sake of our own welfare and that we do not owe any help to him in recovering from his own folly. Yes. We must do whatever is necessary to render the Middle East impotent as a threat and the region is hopeless and (with few exceptions) will have to be isolated and allowed to wither away after it is rendered harmless.

And only with an understanding of the purpose of government can the public see that if we allow ourselves to lose sight of our individual rights during this war, we will have won a meaningless victory.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 90

Murphy's Other Laws

• Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
• He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
• Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
• Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
• Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
• The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong.
• The things that come to those who wait will be the things left by those who got there first.
• Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat all day drinking beer.
• Flashlight: A case for holding dead batteries.
• The shin bone is a device for finding furniture in a dark room.
• A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.
• When you go into court, you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

HT: Mom

It's August 22, ...

... which is a big day on the Shiite calendar. Many half-expect some spectacular act of barbarism today based on the fact that we have still not turned Iran to glass yet. If we had a halfway rational foreign policy, we'd specifically time our heaviest assaults on the Islamic world with their holidays and aim for mosques until they decided it would be OK to leave us the hell alone. Or became extinct, whichever happened first.

Instead, we're sitting on our hands and wondering what Iran is up to.

This year, August 22 marks the holy day on the Islamic calendar that is the day of reckoning for Shiites. Some Shiite sects believe that August 22 could correspond to the end of the world. And just today, after much hype, Iran has announced that it will continue to develop its nuclear program. To followers of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, this is a well-timed affront to Israel, the United States and the world. The United Nations had given Iran until the end of the month to respond, but Ahmadinejad had made it clear to all Iranians and the world that he intended to respond on the eve of August 22.

Some have asked whether upcoming possible North Korean nuclear testing could be conducted for this occasion, while Robert Spencer asks: "An odd story from AP, with thanks to Ana. Is Iran looking for a little practice in firing upon and occupying enemy ships? Is the Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad planning to throw us all a curve today and declare war on ... Romania?"

In the meantime, I don't know whether the Twelfth Imam is supposed to be a pedophile like the "prophet" Mohammed, but if he is, I do believe a prominent one has "arrived".

Passing as Shiite

And speaking of Shiite, this story from Iran shows how foolishly yielding to Moslem demands -- including even joining the religion -- will not spare you from death threats..

Here is a partial list of the idiotic things Sunni Moslems are having to do in Iran to avoid being killed by death squads.

• Memorise the names of the 12 imams
• Learn to pray in the Shia way and carry turba [Shia holy clay] in your pocket.
• Keep a turba in your house where it can be seen, and put up if necessary a black or a green banner on the roof
• Keep a poster in your house of Imam Hussein. You can buy them in Mutanabbi Street in Baghdad
• Keep a copy of the Sajadi newspaper [a Shia paper that has Shia prayers] and read some of the prayers, some of them are touchingly beautiful
• Keep a latmiya [Shia song] on your mobile phone
• Learn how to curse Yazid and Mu'awiya and Bani Umayya [early Sunni caliphs hated by the Shias] and in the way the Shias do
• Wear or keep black clothes in your house ...

The more I learn about Islam the more ridiculous I realize it is. Think about it. If you don't carry the right dirt around in your pocket, leave the right newspapers lying around in your house, have the right inane cell phone ring tone, or wear the right "gang colors", you could be killed. How fucking ridiculous.

Not that I advocate wasting any time trying to please these superstitious goons, but even if I did: There is no such thing as being "sensitive enough" or "obedient enough"! They'll just cook up some other lame excuse to kill you.

The sooner most of us recognize that fact, the better. This religion deserves no consideration and no quarter.

The Small Universe of the Pinheads

Dumpster diving finally made the Houston Chronicle this weekend. Amusingly to me, two subjects I blogged about before, the Sojourners and freegans, converged in the following quote.

"I'm trying to limit my participation in some of the corporate farming practices that are terrible for the environment and aren't healthy," said Ryan Beiler, citing pesticides, animal cruelty and pollution. "I'm struck by the absurdity of how the American economy works."

Beiler, Web editor for Sojourners magazine, estimated that 95 percent of the food he eats comes from his every-other-week Dumpster runs.

He's not the only one struck by the "absurdity of how the American economy works".

Only in America can creatures like Beiler survive for long enough to provide those of us who work for a living with entertainment.

Call me Neo.

I've come across another super hero quiz.

You scored as Neo, the "One". Neo is the computer hacker-turned-Messiah of the Matrix. He leads a small group of human rebels against the technology that controls them. Neo doubts his ability to lead but doesn't want to disappoint his friends. His goal is for a world where all men know the Truth and are free from the bonds of the Matrix. Neo, the "One" 83% Batman, the Dark Knight 79% The Amazing Spider-Man 67% Maximus 63% James Bond, Agent 007 58% Lara Croft 54% Captain Jack Sparrow 46% Indiana Jones 42% William Wallace 33% The Terminator 21% El Zorro 21% Which Action Hero Would You Be? v. 2.0 created with QuizFarm.com

(HT: Maximus)

Blogging Fatigues

I was wondering where Martin went off to. Among other things, he says, "Maybe I should follow Laurence Simon's dress code."

It seems to work for me! (After I remove the black trenchcoat, of course.)

Back in the Saddle

Daniel Rigby is blogging regularly again.

-- CAV