Public Reeducation in Delaware

From the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) -- and paid for by the citizens of the state of Delaware -- comes an excellent example of why the state should not be involved in any way in educating the young:

According to the program's materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university's residence halls to achieve certain "competencies" that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of "citizenship." These competencies include: "Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society," "Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression" and "Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality."

At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations, committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20%, taking action by advocating for an "oppressed" social group, and taking action by advocating for a "sustainable world."

In the Office of Residence Life's internal materials, these programs are described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation. In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as "treatments."

Note the clinical language, which simultaneously allows the University of Delaware to pretend that it is actually imparting objective knowledge, while attempting to dodge charges that it is forcing its students to be subjected to a campaign of badgering and brainwashing intended to make them adopt a certain point of view.

This is not to say that such matters as political and ethical theory cannot have a rational basis and be argued from evidence and logic -- or that universities should not offer an (actual) education in philosophical thinking. Universities can and should teach these things, but free from the funding and control of the state. Indeed -- if they can find paying customers -- universities should be free to offer brainwashing like this.

Unfortunately, when the state takes money from citizens to pay for the propagation of a given point of view -- even a rational one -- it violates the rights of all to determine which causes to support or boycott with their own money. Furthermore, it makes it difficult for parents to afford to send their children to universities that offer educations more in line with what they want for their children.

Even in the best of circumstances, a state school will have to make curriculum choices and teach from at least an implicitly-held point of view. Even this violates individual rights. But when a reeducation program is presented as an uncontroversial package of "competencies", it goes under the radar and suddenly, the state is churning out brainwashed zombies -- rather than educated adults -- at taxpayer expense.

-- CAV

PS: Incidentally, recall that many libertarians, in their disdain for philosophical ideas, regard freedom as something so obviously beneficial that everyone wants it. If this is so, how is it that the administration of the University of Delaware apparently regards it just as uncontroversial that people should be trained in a statist program to regard white people as inherently racist (!) and adopt a constellation of attitudes hostile to capitalism?

Quick Roundup 267

Newt Gingrich Praises New Deal

Not that I care much for Ann "I ALWAYS agreed with Jerry Falwell" Coulter, but I do have to credit her with observing that when you hear a left-wing journalist gushing about a Republican politician, it is usually because said Republican has embraced socialism in some particularly ... useful ... way.

And so it is that we see this column at Slate opening with William Saletan all agog because Gingrich said, "In the Hegelian model, it's not enough to be the antithesis party." "How many other Washington big shots go around quoting Hegel?" he asks.

And yes, it is this bad. So bad, in fact, I found myself wishing that for once, a Republican would live up to the left-wing stereotype of ignorant rube. Sadly, this is precisely what Gingrich means:

Nor is [Gingrich] averse to government spending and intervention in markets. He just wants the spending and intervention to take the form of incentives. Instead of giving $1 billion to a federal agency to deal with a problem, he'd offer the money as a prize to the first company that solves it. As the conversation proceeds, Gingrich throws money at one challenge after another. Hydrogen fuel? Dangle a 10-figure prize. Nuclear waste? A 10 percent tax break to any state that accepts it. Endangered species? Annual bonuses to countries that keep them alive. Math and science education? Pay poor kids for taking the classes and earning a B average. Even FDR's colossal outlays fit Gingrich's philosophy. "The entire New Deal was based on incentives," he says. [bold added]

Yeah. Just like when a thug says, "Your money or your life," you have an "incentive" to hand over your wallet. The whole concept of incentives is out the window when the government comes into play because the government, by its nature, is packing heat. (Even the harmless-sounding prizes involve property theft, and afford the government the ability to tamper with those areas of research a free market would reward on its own anyway -- by diverting productive effort to areas that science and industry have not selected as worthwhile.)

As with Cal Thomas and the conservative movement in general, Gingrich has decided to fully embrace statism, but dishonestly pull the wool over the eyes of American voters by means of capitalist rhetoric. It is no more an "incentive" to pick less from someone's pockets (even if he is so foolish as to feel that it is) than it is "privatization" to move from a socialist model of running an industry to a fascist one. The fact remains that the government violates individual rights when it interferes with a free economy no matter by what degree or whether its citizens notice.

It will make you sick, but read the whole thing to see just how low Newt Gingrich has sunk.

Sowell on Political "Solutions"

Thomas Sowell writes a column that comments on what I think is a cultural phenomenon which is simply best seen in government. He starts off his column with the following: "It is remarkable how many political 'solutions' today are dealing with problems created by previous political 'solutions.'"

Indeed it is. But this vicious circle could easily be broken if voters would only start demanding that politicians stop meddling in their affairs. There are many things at work here. A few that immediately come to mind are: a desire to get something for nothing, a desire to have others do one's thinking for him, a poor understanding of individual rights and the proper purpose of government, and a failure to hold oneself or others accountable for their actions. These all have in common a widespread failure to apply reason to one's problems (and thus the self-confidence and the demand to be free to do so that naturally come with it).

I'm thinking out loud here, but I think the last item on the above (non-exhaustive) list is both a consequence of irrational ideas and a manifestation of some psychological consequences of irrationality, which is perhaps best seen in many "battered wives", who, while they may have legitimate reasons to fear for their safety while they attempt to leave abusive spouses, are also riddled with so much self-doubt that they have a hard time even attempting to seriously entertain doing so.

And thus we see yet another reason why a cultural revolution must precede a political one. Not only must people actually understand what capitalism is and why it is both moral and practical. People must also be strong enough psychologically not to see freedom as threatening or frightening in any way.

As it is now, were one to propose proper remedies to the crises Sowell discusses -- like adopting a gold standard and free banking, or removing all restrictions on land use, or allowing water prices to rise with demand -- one would not just meet philosophical opposition. One would also scare many of his listeners.

This Season's Colors -- for Men

Having more free time is the watchword for this fall's football season's fashions!

Lie perfectly still, soldier, until she calls off her search and rakes that lawn herself! (HT: my younger brother)

-- CAV

Islamo-Fascism: What's in the name?

In the course of foraging for blogging material, I decided to look at Dennis Prager's column about his experience as a speaker for the conservative "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" campaign when I saw a link to it for the third time. I give it a mixed review.

... [T]hey saw a decent man, a sometimes funny guy, and heard a low-keyed, intellectual speech that contained not one word of gratuitous hatred.

First, I found his experience as a campus lecturer instructive: It is worth mentioning that following my lecture, the student who wrote the column comparing me to a Ku Klux Klanner came over to me and said he was writing a column of apology to me and asked to be photographed with me. This is not surprising. Students at most universities are almost brainwashed into being leftist -- and the way they are taught to disagree with their political opponents is by using ad hominem attacks. Conservatives are described over and over as mean-spirited, war-loving, greedy, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, homophobic, sexist, intolerant and oblivious to human suffering.

Such ad hominem labels are the left's primary rhetorical weapons. So when leftist students are actually confronted with even one articulate conservative, many enter a world of cognitive dissonance. That is one reason why universities rarely invite conservatives to speak: they might change some students' minds. [bold added]

Prager here demonstrates the power of politeness, an issue I once touched on here, but in a way I hadn't considered at the time: Why play the part your opponents want to assign to you when simply by acting benevolent and civilized you demonstrate to the people who count -- thinking adults -- that you are likely a man of substance?

Having said that, it's too bad that conservatives are increasingly becoming indistinguishable in their political goals from the left, as Cal Thomas and Newt Gingrich so openly admit. The chief difference between left and right these days would appear to be whether we should allow Islamists to establish a theocracy or establish a Christian one ourselves. And yet, clearly, there is a market for a real alternative. I guess I'll work to help fill that void.

But back to Prager....

Toward the end end of his column, he discusses the validity of the term "Islamo-Fascism". I think the term Islamic totalitarianism is better because fascism is only a specific kind of totalitarianism (and not really the right one at that), but that is beside the point:

First, the term is not anti-Muslim. One may object to the term on factual grounds, i.e., one may claim that there are no fascistic behaviors among people acting in the name of Islam -- but such a claim is a denial of the obvious.

So once one acknowledges the obvious, that there is fascistic behavior among a core of Muslims -- specifically, a cult of violence and the wanton use of physical force to impose an ideology on others -- the term "Islamo-Fascism" is entirely appropriate. [bold added]

So far so good.

Second, the question then arises as to whether that term is anti-Muslim in that it besmirches the name of Islam and attempts to describe all Muslims as fascist. This objection, too, has a clear response.

The term no more implies all Muslims or Islam is fascistic than the term "German fascism" implied all Germans were fascists or "Italian fascism" or "Japanese fascism" implied that all Italians or all Japanese were fascists. Indeed, even religious groups have been labeled as fascist. During World War II, for example, Croatian Catholic fascists were called Catholic Fascists, and no one argued that the term was invalid because it purportedly labeled all Catholics or Catholicism fascist. [bold added]

I have no problem with wanting not to label all individual Moslems as totalitarians. To do so would be just as wrong-headed as to pretend that there is not an Islamic totalitarian movement. It is with the notion that the term is good because it does not "besmirch Islam" I take issue.

Prager's analogy between ethnicity and religion obscures essential differences between the two behind superficial similarities. Certainly, one's personal development can be shaped by the ethnic background or religious milieu in which he was raised by accident of birth, but of the two, it is only religion -- and not ethnicity -- that offers a comprehensive (quasi-philosophic) view of the universe and ethical guidance along with it. And the epistemological influence of religion, along with its ethical guidance shapes the political views of the adherents of a religion.

Thus Islam, unlike "German-ness" or Italian ethnicity, is a system of thought and as such, it is fair game to ask whether its premises, cognitive methods, and teachings lead to totalitarianism when applied consistently or not. And if they do, then it does not "besmirch" Islam to say so: It renders justice to Islam and invites us to examine other religions critically in turn.

Furthermore, because Islam demands unquestioning obedience to its authorities in every aspect of life, including the political, I think that it is fair to say that the religion does strongly promote totalitarianism, especially given that, unlike for Christianity and Judaism, it has no strong rational tradition as a counterweight to this blind obedience.

But this is not especially to defend any religion. To the extent that a religion quashes one's independent judgement, it promotes tyranny. Islam is simply the "purest" religion in terms of its epistemological methods and how seriously its followers take it. And it, along with Christianity, is trending away from whatever rational influence has acted upon it in the past.

Prager is right. There are rational Moslems here and there. Indeed, I suspect that few of these would take offense at the term "Islamo-Fasciscm", even without Prager's hand-holding. So why take so much care not to "besmirch" Islam? I suspect that it is because Prager, religious himself, would regard a critical (i.e., rational) evaluation of any religion as unacceptable.

That is too bad, for faith and force are corollaries, as Ayn Rand once pointed out, and to give religion a free pass is to give tyranny a head start at establishing itself. One may wish that religion were a good thing, but wishing doesn't make it so.

-- CAV

11-8-07: Corrected a typo.

Quick Roundup 266

Divine Sadist

Andrew Dalton reminds me of an objection I have always had to Pascal's Wager: In addition to the fact that Pascal's Wager assumes that the Christian God is the right one to gamble on (And ignore for a moment that He is reported to regard gambling as a sin.), there is also the flaw that the argument assumes that He really means it when He is says that belief will be rewarded in the hereafter.

If a deity were perverse enough to create intelligent life, but make the demand that it abdicate its intelligence or face eternal perdition, why stop there? Why not consign all to eternal suffering, but especially those stupid enough to take silly promises at face value?

FCC Measure to Ensure Low Quality Cable for Poor

Galileo Blogs discusses the inevitable consequences of a recent FCC decree that sounds like it came right off pages of Atlas Shrugged:

[N]ot only is the FCC chairman's action immoral, but it will not "help" the poor or anyone else. The key to understanding this is the observation of the cable industry association that "cable companies were often granted exclusive rights to buildings after agreeing to make major capital investments in upgrading systems." Thus, a principal reason for these exclusive deals is so that apartment owners can negotiate with cable companies to pay for the wiring of their buildings. A wiring upgrade means higher bandwidth, and therefore more channels, faster Internet service, and enhanced telecommunications service. Strike down the exclusive deals and you cut out future wiring upgrades and the enhanced services it brings. [bold added]

And then, in a few years, this result will strike someone like Dennis Kucinich like a bolt from the blue. The proposed remedy won't be to get out of the way of such exclusive deals permanently, but to arbitrarily force cable companies to lower their rates -- which will mean that we can all have the same shabby service.

The only way to avert such a scenario is to make a principled case for capitalism as the moral and practical political system. This requires advocating a proper understanding of morality as a field open to rational inquiry, including the determination of why we should have morality in the first place. Only then will egoism be properly understood and its practicality be known and appreciated.

And speaking of altruism, Galileo's previous post incidentally provides an excellent example of the lethal consequences of human (self-)sacrifice.

Colorado "in the Wood" on Health Care

Ari Armstrong notes a coincidence that would be amusing but for its potential consequences:

I particularly like the title, "Plan Five." For some reason, it reminded me of Plan 9 from Outer Space. The comparison is doubly fitting, because the movie is about the goofy plans of extraterrestrials, and the movie is one of the worst ones ever made. But at least it's funny. Not so with "Plan Five" from the 208 Commission.

Armstrong notes the skepticism of a Colorado paper arising at least in part from the hefty price tag of a proposed plan to socialize medicine in his state. That particular objection is a mere road bump -- useful only for possibly slowing down the move to enslave physicians.

-- CAV

How to Help Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Via HBL comes the following clarification for those inclined to help Ayaan Hirsi Ali protect herself from the death threats of Islamic totalitarians. Note that it supersedes all previous advice that appeared here:

Dear Supporter of Ayaan Hirsi Ali,

Last week, we sent out preliminary information about a fund that has been set up to privately finance Ayaan Hirsi Ali's security, now that it is no longer being provided by the Dutch government. Below and attached, please find more detailed information about how you can contribute to this fund. This is the most accurate and up-to-date information; please disregard the previous email you were sent.

This new information is ready to be widely disseminated and replaces any previous communications you may have received. Please feel free to share the details with anyone interested in helping Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely, Yael Levin Office of Ayaan Hirsi Ali American Enterprise Institute

Providing Financial Assistance for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Security Detail

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Dutch parliamentarian and an outspoken defender of women's rights in Islamic societies, is at risk from a variety of extremist threats in both Europe and the United States. She has needed constant security protection since her life was originally threatened in 2002. Up until October 1, 2007, this protection was provided by the Dutch government.

Now a permanent resident of the United States and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Ms. Hirsi Ali must raise her own funds to finance her costly-but necessary-protection. In response to the numerous private citizens who have expressed interest in helping Ms. Hirsi Ali fund her security detail, the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust has been established.

The preferred and most immediate way to assist Ms. Hirsi Ali in the financing of her private security protection is through the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust. This private trust fund can accept non-tax deductible donations from within the United States and internationally, and is entirely dedicated to financing Ms. Hirsi Ali's security.

Checks should be made payable to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust and sent to:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust
Bank of Georgetown
1054 31st Street, N.W.
Suite 18
Washington, DC 20007

Ayaan Hirsi Ali Trust Tax Identification Number: 75-6826872

Thank you for your interest in assisting Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

For more information please contact: John Matteo
(jmatteo@jackscamp.com) or Mackenzie McNaughton
(mmcnaughton@jackscamp.com), representatives for Ms. Hirsi Ali.

Telephone: 202.457.1600 [minor edits]

If you can't donate, spread the word!

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 265

Stop by Bubblehead's ...

... to get the latest gouge, as we used to say in the Navy, on the sudden relief of the captain of the nuclear powered submarine USS Hampton (SSN-767). Well worth perusal are the many intelligent comments the above post drew. In addition, The Sub Report is the place to go for the latest news reports.

I haven't been following this one closely, but it sounds very, very bad. It sounds so bad, in fact, that I find some parts of how it is being portrayed in the news media unbelievable. That's all I will say for now. In the meantime, I'll let the newest millionaire on my blogroll keep showing how it's done when he's not busy doing Dr. Evil imitations.

Well, OK. I'll say one more thing, thanks to one of the commenters over at The Stupid Shall Be Punished: Assuming it takes less than a decade to make razors out of a boat, I've been inside one of these before!


But no, I don't know which!

Two Bloggers Resurface

Gideon Reich (Armchair Intellectual) and Andy (The Charlotte Capitalist) have posted recently to their blogs.

Gideon, who described himself as a "student of Objectivism" kicks off his return to blogging with a long, but interesting post about a recent months-long exploration of his Jewish heritage.

And Andy describes an interesting event that Objectivists who live in the South might consider attending.

Celebrate the 50th anniversary of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged with a free public lecture by Andrew Bernstein Saturday, Nov. 10 in Greenville, S.C. hosted by the New South Objectivists.

For those who might be interested in re-visiting the web site of the New South Objectivists later on, I have provided a permanent link to it on the resources page of this site. Just click "Some Links" at the upper right any time, and look for them in the rightmost column under "Local Organizations".

I'm glad to see that Gideon's back and, although I'm not completely sure how regularly Andy will be blogging now, I hope he's back, too, and I'll keep an eye out for more activity over there.

Huh! And I always imagined McGonagall with blast-ended screwts!

When my wife got wind of J. K. Rowling's silly announcement that Dumbledore is gay, she had an immediate and, come to think of it, rather profound reply: "I don't care what she says. Dumbledore is not gay."

Toiler touches on the reason I think this reaction is profound as he comments on a pretty good column reacting to this revelation:

Creativity is only half the job of an author; selectivity is the other half.

So you made your choices, Ms. Rowling. They were tough choices. Some of them you may even regret. Now you have to do what all authors do: live with those choices. That's your job. Or, if you just can't endure having all of those morbid darlings locked up inside of you, how about writing another book? I'm sure you'd find a hungry audience. [bold added]

Dumbledore's sexual preference had absolutely zilch to do with the plot of Harry Potter, which is why it was so important that Rowling left it out of the books in the first place. Including it would have damaged the integrity of the work and speculating on it now is a meddlesome intrusion into the imaginations of her audience.

In fact, this announcement borders on a personal violation of the psyche of each of her fans. I do not regard homosexuality as a moral issue and yet I find myself very disappointed in Rowling despite the good intentions so many have projected onto this announcement.

Based on what little I know of Rowling's beliefs, I see this as a prime example of someone with mixed premises who compartmentalizes. As an artist, Rowling appears to know what to include and what to leave out in order to write the kind of story that legions of authors hewing more consistently to her leftist beliefs are simply unable to produce. In other words, she acts Aristotelian when she writes, despite her explicitly Platonic beliefs.

This is the same type of phenomenon we see all over the place among educated professionals who show brilliance and unstinting diligence in their daily jobs -- and yet whose political beliefs would make performing these very jobs impossible. Just take any excellent doctor who advocates socialized medicine, and consider how well he could continue professionally if he had to answer to a mindless bureaucrat at every turn.

Based on this announcement, I will be pleasantly surprised if anything else Rowling writes in the future even remotely approaches the brilliance of Harry Potter. She seems to regret not having been a more "serious" author. Too bad she doesn't seem to know how serious what she produced really is.

But I have all my fingers!

I popped up as "Frodo after the War of the Ring" in this Lord of the Rings quiz, and as someone who has "a tortured soul".

[A]ll that you once knew will never be the same, nor will you ever, *really* feel at peace. You saved Middle Earth, but at great personal sacrifice. You joined the Elves to Valinor.

Silly altruist! How is saving the world one lives in a "sacrifice"? The author of the quiz clearly meant "cost". (HT: Gideon Reich and Rational Jenn)

- -CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected a typo.

Site Maintenance

I finally got around to some of the site maintenance I mentioned the other day. Here are the highlights:

• The list of favorite posts has been updated, with everything added since March 25 preceded by the word "new" as with the last few additions to the blogroll.
• At the upper left of that page, you will see a new entry in the Table of Contents: "Recipes". Now you can find them all in one place and without having to wade through the other posts in the "Personal" category.
• I have added the following new blogs to the sidebar: AriArmstrong.com, I know I shouldn't find this funny, Mississippi Brew, and Valzhalla. The first two and the last of these are fellow O-List-ers. Ari Armstrong writes, as I usually do, about cultural and political issues. Valda Redfern (Valzhalla) also does so, but her blog is also something of a personal journal. Doug Peltz (I know I shouldn't find this funny) embeds particularly amusing (and sometimes profound) YouTube videos at his blog. Mississippi Brew is a nicely-done blog about home brewing and craft beers by a fellow Mississippian.
  
• Armchair Intellectual, by Gideon Reich, returns to the sidebar after his year-long hiatus from blogging.
• Finally, I have added a link on the Resources page (at the lower right hand corner under "Other Resources") to the recently-posted Internet version of The Ayn Rand Lexicon, a valuable resource I have occasionally used when blogging (and won't miss copying from by hand ).

Now that I've caught up with the grunt work, I'm shooting to be able to make similar minor updates as a matter of routine every month or two, depending on which interval works best for me.

Enjoy!

-- CAV

Updates

10-29-07: Corrected a typo.

Quick Roundup 264

Words of Encouragement

I would like to thank everyone who commented here or at their own blogs or wrote in about yesterday's post. I can't say it enough that my readers have helped make blogging very worthwhile to me.

And speaking of encouragement, I have to say again that I feel like a real ass for failing to mention my dear wife until later on yesterday. She knows how much I like to write and has been very accommodating about my writing schedule. Also, she has often given me some very good feedback on my work, including, from time to time, much-needed reminders (item 3 there) that there is more to life than just writing!

That's very important to me, but it is just a small part of why I love her.

Copyrights and Movies

Qwertz ponders a recent episode in which a school teacher came under fire for the wrong reason:

The complaint is that showing a PG-13 film to 3d-5th graders is inappropriate. Nothing is said about how showing a bootleg of such a film is inappropriate. In my not so humble opinion, the latter is the worse offense.

A moral code that causes some people to be so concerned about prescribing the behavior of others through assorted arbitrary taboos that they completely miss the fact that a teacher is, by example, basically training students to commit theft is completely bankrupt and irrelevant to life on earth.

Qwertz also fields a question in his comments about the movie ratings system.

State Funding Equals State Control

About a decade ago, some liberal acquaintance of mine spammed me with one of those appeals to action that liberals are so notable for sending out. This one was in support of continued government funding of the arts, which I think was being looked at for funding cuts back then.

My reply was short and sweet. It was something like: "I cannot support government funding of the arts because government funding equals government control." Somehow, I don't think I changed her mind, but at least I stopped getting spam from that particular source afterwards.

The above episode came to mind this morning when I went through yesterday's HBL posting and saw a link to a superb piece by Jan Bowman at Spiked on "Why artists shouldn't accept state funding."

The result is a burgeoning fellowship of 'artists' and 'arts practitioners' who owe their careers entirely to the state and who survive by ticking the right boxes in return for accommodating to the government's propaganda requirements. For all Tessa Jowell's fine words about the unique, transcendent value of art, New Labour will accept an awful lot of rubbish from artists so long as the results send the right 'message' about smoking, drinking, child abuse, internet porn, recycling, or any other current government obsession - even better if the process involves sufficient members of the public, from nursery upwards.

Because of this complicated and compromising arrangement, thoughtful art graduates should beware of applying for government funds to do their art. [bold added]

There is no way to do justice to this piece by excerpting it because it is a very thorough examination of this problem.

My only reservations about the piece are that it accepts the common misconception that art cannot be objectively evaluated and that it does not fundamentally challenge the propriety of government funding for certain industries.

The subjectivity canard is bad enough in and of itself, but combined with Bowman's own acceptance of state funding for things that can be objectively measured, it undercuts her whole argument by separating it from the wider problem of government funding of any enterprise not properly a function of government.

The fact is that government funding of the arts (or even most scientific research) represents a violation of the rights of those whose money was stolen from them in order to provide the funding as well as a diversion of government funds from their proper purpose, the protection of individual rights. The resulting distortions in the economy also deprive numerous people who might have a chance at success in a free market of opportunities -- while also inducing some whose talents would be better employed elsewhere to remain.

In addition, the control of huge sums of money by government officials (rather than customers from a free market who expect value for their purchases) hangs like a huge sword over the industry the state is supposedly in the business of promoting. This fact is a huge conflict of interest for the officials involved and threatens to easily compromise the integrity of anyone who wants such funds.

This is all true regardless of what enterprise the state funds or whether we have worked out an objective means of measuring the value of the goods produced.

Despite this serious shortcoming, I highly recommend the article.

The Latest Undercurrent ...

... is out, as announced on HBL, and they want your help getting it out onto college campuses. Here is the table of contents:

In Defense of Corporate America, by Noah Stahl
How Not to Lie with Statistics: The Good, the Bad, and the Average, by Gena Gorlin
The Business of Healthcare, by Laura Mazer
Operation Iraqi Freedom: An Altruistic War, by fellow blogger Dan Edge
Faith and Reason: Friends or Foes?, by Kelly Cadenas
Anti-Smoking Paternalism: A Cancer on American Liberty, by Don Watkins

Lots of very interesting stuff!

An Objectivism Seminar

On the off chance you haven't seen it on Noodle Food, Greg Perkins is gearing up to hold weekly seminars on Objectivism using Skype and other such electronic technology.

Because it is an ongoing seminar, we will have incentive to keep up with the steady schedule of study and stay equipped to consider fresh angles, concretizations, challenges, and applications from other participants. And because life is so full for many of us, I am purposefully keeping the reading load light and the method of participation unobtrusive. The plan is that we will spend almost as much time discussing the ideas as reading about them. Study like this is productive for both experienced students of Objectivism and those new to Rand's ideas: I've read all of these books, some several times, and I would expect to get at least as much out of this as someone going through them for the first time.

I have enough commitments myself that I won't be joining the first of these, but I might join the next one. It sounds really interesting and it looks like he's put quite a bit of thought into how to make this work smoothly.

15th Objectivist Roundup

Rational Jenn hosted it this week, and I finally remembered to submit something myself!

-- CAV

Gus Van Horn Turns Three!

Well. Now it's three years in a row that I arrive at the celebration of my blog's birthday tired and not quite in a writing mood. Fortunately for me this time around, I wasn't up until 3:00 in the morning the night before, although I do find myself putting off some blog maintenance I had in mind, sort of like on my first blogging anniversary. (I will be updating the list of favorite posts and sidebar links some time soon -- just not today as I'd hoped.)

Unlike on those previous two blogiversaries, though, I have been thinking more about blogging, my writing career, and life in general this time around. Indeed, as I glance back at those other two blogiversary posts and the post that started it all, I am struck by how much I have changed as a writer, as a thinker, and as a person over that time.

I began blogging for several reasons, the central ones being that I want to pursue a career of some kind in opinion writing (be that on the side or full-time), but that I was unclear how best to proceed. The friend who, over a sociable pint, first got me to consider blogging, provided an important part of the answer. People have been discovered and managed to achieve national prominence through blogging since the rise of the medium.

Experience and the gradual accumulation of knowledge that comes with it are providing the rest of the answer. I argue from a perspective that is just now gaining greater prominence culturally and in the public debate. The upside is that I'm getting in on the ground floor. The downside is that there will likely not be, even in the best of circumstances, a rapid rise to fame: Most people do not necessarily want to hear what I have to say. In addition, I have learned, I think from Scott Adams, that success even for someone more mainstream does not come overnight. If I recall correctly, he labored for about a decade before Dilbert became a household name.

It is with that as a backdrop that I have been thinking lately about how blogging will fit into the picture of my pursuit of a writing career, including the question of whether to continue at all. (Coincidentally, I was thinking hardest about that very question the morning that news of John Cox and Allen Forkum's decision to stop cartooning struck me like a lightning bolt from my feed reader.) Writing daily takes time and energy, even when it comes easily to me, which, fortunately, it normally does.

The question is: Am I gaining enough value from my blogging to justify the expense? Monetarily, no. Or at least not yet. But as I have watched my audience slowly grow in numbers while continuing to be of high quality, I have received encouragement as a writer. In fact, some people I hold in very high regard either follow this blog or have told me personally -- without my asking -- that they like my writing. Furthermore, one doesn't occasionally get links out of the blue from the likes of City Journal if one isn't doing something right.

Indeed, over the past year, although my output of formal writing has been low (and very frustrating for me), I am undertaking two projects (and may participate in a third) that stand to further my writing career in one way or another, be that improving my approach to writing to the point that I will more consistently produce publishable work, making myself known to a broader audience, or even perhaps getting paid to write something for the first time. All this has been during a year that has been exceedingly busy with no signs of slowing down, but during which I still managed a fairly regular posting schedule.

I would have to say that this year has been difficult on a daily level, but exciting in the long view. Both have been due to my blogging, as has my discovery of a possible answer to my dilemma about whether and how to continue. As I have mentioned quite frequently lately, another blogger, historian Scott Powell, introduced me to the work of productivity guru David Allen, whose methods I have adopted and which have begun bearing fruit for me in the form of a mother lode of time recovered from each day -- and a lower stress level. I have realized both simply by changing some of my work habits according to his suggestions. I now spend less time blogging, but have managed to continue what I regard as an output level sufficient to maintain the value of this blog for myself and my regular readers.

Whether I will be able to continue blogging at my normal pace and pursue these other writing-related projects remains to be seen. David Allen's methods are slowly revolutionizing the way I do almost everything. Thus it is possible that as I continue making my approach to project management more efficient and continue to internalize this new way of working, that I will be able to maintain the amount and quality of output here to make this blog continue to be worth my time and effort.

In summary, this blog gives me, as a writer, value in terms of practice at research and writing, feedback, and networking. I must continue blogging to continue seeing these benefits, as well as a few others I have just thought of, but don't have time to elaborate on. It is not producing income for me or getting me published, although it could do these things eventually. It does cost me time and energy, but I may find that I have more of both than I think (and can use each more efficiently) as I integrate David Allen's techniques into my work habits. In the short term, I am going to continue blogging in order to continue to reap its benefits and in part just to see whether I can. This blog started as an adventure and continues to be one!

Last but not least, blogging has introduced me to an ever-widening circle of really good people, several of whom I have had the honor to meet personally, and it has led to my renewing several old acquaintances, including that of an old friend I had a falling-out with some years ago. This has been the greatest boon of all, and I would like to thank all of you, as well as the rest of my readers.

As an activity, writing is a strange mixture of the solitary and the social. You have all made that second aspect of it very worthwhile to me. Because of that, I will never regret blogging as a person, regardless of where I eventually take it as a writer. Thank you very much for stopping by.

-- CAV

PS: Very last and way far from least, the blogger (pictured at right) thanks his wife for her tolerance (and indeed, support) of his constant blogging, and especially for her (cough) feedback whenever he asks her to listen to him read a post he is especially proud of!

I am the luckiest man in the world and love her very much.

Updates

Today: (1) Minor edits. (2) Made feeble attempt to claw my way out of doghouse by adding a postscript after reading this to my dear, beloved, and very tolerant wife!

Quick Roundup 263

My schedule was packed to begin with over the last couple of weeks. And then I spent the weekend on two jobs I thought I could knock off on a Saturday afternoon -- upgrading my Frankenputer with a nice, fat 500 GB hard drive and a DVD burner, then using the old drive to attempt to recover data from a crashed hard drive on my wife's desktop.

As an indirect consequence, I find myself blogging this morning's post the night before so I can race in to work to do there in the morning what I was supposed to be able to do in the comfort of my own home. Hopefully, my wife's software CD is in my office, where she thinks it is, and I won't have this problem the next time I'd rather work at home.

Anywho....

The Nobel in Your iPod

Speaking of hard drives, here's a story about the men who made small, high-capacity disks possible in the first place:

Albert Fert of France and Peter Gruenberg of Germany were awarded the 2007 Nobel Prize in Physics on Tuesday for a discovery that has shrunk the size of hard disks found in computers, iPods and other digital devices.

The duo discovered a totally new physical effect that has let the computer industry develop sensitive reading tools for information stored on computer hard drives from the tiniest laptops to portable music and video players.

"The MP3 and iPod industry would not have existed without this discovery," Borje Johansson, a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, said. "You would not have an iPod without this effect."

At least in the sciences, the Nobel continues to be awarded for constructive effort!

And you thought back-seat drivers were bad!

The Japanese have invented a portable toilet for automobiles!

Drivers stranded by tectonic movements or stuck in tailbacks simply assemble the cardboard toilet bowl, fit a water-absorbent sheet inside and draw round the curtain.

The product is small enough to fit inside a suitcase, the company said.

Note to self: Add a couple of these to the hurricane season shopping list. Earthquakes aren't the only thing that can strand you in a car for hours on end.

I must be in a perverse mood....

I ran across this book review about Piers Brendon's The Decline and Fall of the British Empire and laughed out loud at the below passage.

Brendon's characters alone could fill a pantomime stage many times over. The empire seemed to abound in British oddballs, from the notorious Richard Burton, who "liked to boast that he had indulged in every vice and indulged in every crime", to the maverick General Orde Wingate, who "would ... hold interviews while lying naked on a bed and combing his body hair with a toothbrush". Postcolonial heroes fare little better. Jomo Kenyatta "sported plus-fours, drank literally inflammatory Nubian gin and so indulged his sexual appetites that he was suspended from church membership", while Tunku Abdul Rahman of Malaysia was "notorious for dancing, horse-racing, driving fast cars and getting into tight corners with loose women". Kwame Nkrumah "studied the occult, consulted oracles" and "compared himself to Christ". Mahatma Gandhi becomes "a compound of oriental mystic and occidental crank, humble sadhu and astute advocate".

At least from this review, the book sounds overall more like interesting diversionary reading than serious history.

Has The Office Jumped the Shark?

The folks at Slate think that the first few episodes this season have been weak. This former Seinfeld addict disagrees, but from a position of ignorance: All I know is this season and a few older episodes.

What NBC "The Office" character are you? Your Result: Jim Halpert   You are the kind of person that everyone likes. You are funny, laid back, and not bad looking. You love practical jokes and having a fun time with your friends. However, because you are so laid back you often let the things that are most important to you get away. I miss Dwight. Congratulations Universe, you win.
Pam Beesly
Ryan Howard
Angela Martin
Toby Flenderson
Dwight Kurt Schrute
Kelly Kapoor
Michael Scott
What NBC "The Office" character are you? See All Our Quizzes

And that I am Jim!

-- CAV

The Jihadist in Your Portfolio

Caroline Glick has penned a must-read about "Shari'a-Friendly Investments" over at Jewish World Review.

A combination of hypocrisy, the life-blood of religions the world over, ...

Given the religious rather than financial aim of Shari'a-compliant investing, it isn't surprising that Shari'a-compliant investments are little more than a word game. Paying lip service to the Koranic prohibition on interest-based transactions and risky investments, Mawdudi and Qutb invented various means to cover the fact that Shari'a-compliant investments involve both interest payments and risk. [bold added]

... widespread Pragmatism (i.e., in the form of the rejection of broad abstractions and philosophic principles as irrelevant) in the West, ...

[T]he new trend in the West is for Western financial institutions to offer Shari'a-compliant investment opportunities. So excited is Britain, for instance about the financial benefit to be gained by attracting oil-rich Islamic investors that in January Britain's Treasury Minister Ed Balls announced his government's intention to turn London into the center of global Islamic finance.

...

Many New York investment houses, banks and hedge funds have indicated their interest in expanding their services to include Shari'a-compliant investments. These organizations should carefully consider the likely moral and criminal implications of enabling Shari'a advisors associated with radical Islamic theologians and a foreign body on record for supporting terror, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism to determine both the composition of their investments and the utilization of 2.5 percent of the revenues stemming from those investments. [bold added; Glick notes earlier that, "[R]adicals, supported by jihad-supporting Islamic institutions constitute an effective cartel in Shari'a-finance.]

... and the general confusion our Commander-in-Chief has sown in a time of war ...

Perhaps the greatest problem with the term "war on terror" is that it confuses both the public and those charged with prosecuting the war on all levels about the nature of the enemy we face. The jihadists who seek to dominate the world in the name of Islam are not merely involved in violent activities. Organizations like Hamas, Hizbullah and al-Qaida devote the majority of their efforts to spreading the message of jihad by proselytizing fellow Muslims through propaganda, educational and welfare activities. These actions are vital for building popular support both for their terror activities and for their larger political goals.

Essential to the aims of the jihadists is the Muslim sacrament of zakat. Zakat, one of the pillars of Islam, requires Muslims to donate 2.5 percent of their incomes to charity. As the indictment in the Holyland Foundation case showed, most of the money that the five defendants transferred to Hamas was transferred through zakat committees in Palestinian cities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. These committees then transferred the monies to Hamas terrorists, their family members, political leaders and terror cells. [bold added]

... have just come together to enable Islamic totalitarians to finance terrorism with our help.

Read it all.

-- CAV

Updates

10-24-07: Corrected a typo, HT Adrian Hester.

Quick Roundup 262

Help Ayaan Hirsi Ali

[Update: Corrected information for potential donors can be found here.]

Via HBL, I learned this morning that, as Sam Harris reports in The Los Angeles Times, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is being thrown to the dogs of Mohammed by the Dutch Government.

As you read this, Ayaan Hirsi Ali sits in a safe house with armed men guarding her door. She is one of the most poised, intelligent and compassionate advocates of freedom of speech and conscience alive today, and for this she is despised in Muslim communities throughout the world.

...

[After being persuaded to return to the Netherlands and winning public office there,] Hirsi Ali was immediately forced into hiding and moved from safe house to safe house, sometimes more than once a day, for months. Eventually, her security concerns drove her from the Netherlands altogether. She returned to the U.S., and the Dutch government has been paying for her protection here -- that is, until it suddenly announced last week that it would no longer protect her outside the Netherlands, thereby advertising her vulnerability to the world. [bold added]

This puts it mildly. The Dutch have effectively issued a fatwa for the death of one of their own countrymen.

[Update: The below information has bee superseded by that found here.]

As published on HBL by someone who recently corresponded with her office (and as seen here), an email from Hirsi Ali's office explains how you can help.

Hello,

You are receiving this email because you have written our office before expressing admiration for Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her work. Thank you again for your support -- receiving such expressions from friends and strangers alike provides Ayaan with much strength and encouragement.

As most of you have probably heard, the Dutch government decided last week to stop funding her security. Effective immediately, she must now raise her own funds to finance her very expensive private security.

We are in the process of setting up different vehicles through which those of you interested in supporting Ayaan and her work may contribute to her security funding:

(1) The Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust -- a private trust fund that will be entirely dedicated to financing Ayaan's security. This fund is able to begin accepting donations immediately. Check donations can be made out to the name of the trust, and sent to my attention at the American Enterprise Institute, 1150 Seventeenth St., N.W., Washington, DC. (Please note that this fund can only accept money from within the United States, and that donations to this fund will not be tax deductible.)

(2) A public U.S. charity (501(c)(3)) that will support Muslim dissidents around the world and, among other things, provide financial support for their security -- including Ayaan's. As we are still in the process of establishing this charity, tax deductible donations to it can, for the time being, be made out to American Enterprise Institute and mailed to the attention of Christopher DeMuth, president of AEI, with a cover letter stating the purpose of the donation. (Please note that this fund can also only accept money from within the United States.)

(3) Donations to Ayaan's security from outside the United States can be wired to Haweya, B.V., a special purpose vehicle managed by Ayaan's lawyers in Amsterdam. All funds received will be spent on Ayaan's security and to support her projects with Muslim dissidents. All receipts and expenditures by the company are being checked by public chartered accountants.

The banking details you will need to transfer money to this account are as follows:

Haweya B.V.
P.O. Box 94 510
1090 GM Amsterdam
Netherlands
Account number: 4732822 with Postbank NV, Amsterdam
IBAN number: NL61PSTB0004732822
BIC code bank: PSTBNL21 Postbank NV, Amsterdam

With most sincere gratitude,

Office of Ayaan Hirsi Ali
American Enterprise Institute [minor edits, link added]

[Update: The above information has bee superseded by that found here.]

As of this morning, I am unable to find a web site specifically pertaining to these efforts, nor does Hirsi Ali's blog make note of it. If anyone happens by who learns of any new developments on this before I do, please drop me a line so I can provide an update.

A Bit of Opera

Adrian Hester, making a couple of opera recommendations in an email, pointed me to the above YouTube video of Renee Fleming singing "Ain't it a pretty night" from Susannah.

"They will know we are Christians by our love." (Part II)

Awhile back, I fell for a very good hoax, in which a letter to the editor of a newspaper, supposedly by a fundamentalist Christian, blamed atheists for all of America's problems and ranted that America should "stomp out" atheists. Commenting on this purported display of Christian "love", I said the following:

When I consider the role that ideas have in shaping human action, and consider the belief systems of others, I am basically indifferent to the choices others make as to what they believe. As I see it, it's their life, and if they want to screw it up, it's their business. I become concerned only when it becomes evident that such people, applying their beliefs to politics, act on their wish to end my political freedom (i.e., to endanger my ability to live by my own lights).

Thus, in exact opposite fashion to the the Christian epistle linked above, I never call for the political persecution of those whose beliefs differ from my own; when I criticize the beliefs of others such criticism is based on facts and logic; and I am comfortable in the knowledge that my ideas will win out in a free marketplace of ideas. This letter-writer obviously feels threatened by the fact that some people think for themselves and her expressed response is to act against them with force.

Upon learning that the letter was a hoax, I added in an update that, "Based on personal experience, I can easily imagine some people being jealous that they hadn't thought of this missive on their own."

Now, thanks to Joe (and Ari Armstrong), "some people" need no longer remain jealous. Nor must I rely any longer on vague memories of the palpable hostility some Christians have exhibited when confronted with the psychological trauma of a person who refuses to take orders from their imaginary friend.

Christian exemplar Doug Giles, in a column titled "How to Shut up an Atheist if You Must", makes the hoax letter to the editor sound like the voice of sweet reason. I'll crib Armstrong's excerpts, although they hardly begin to do justice to this rant, Doug Giles, or his faith:

... Suck, for you thick atheists, is a slang word which means to make or to be really, really crappy (kind of like how our culture becomes anytime you guys mess with it). ...

...prissy anti-Christs... pissy God haters... no-God numb nuts... comfortable and cocky atheist...

[E]verywhere I go and speak -- be it in conferences, on the radio, on television or in print -- I'm going to encourage the tens of thousands of Christians I address that every time and everywhere they get crapped on by an atheist with unfounded arguments to open their mouths and slam dance them with facts found in these two new brilliant books from Regnery [by Dinesh D'Souza and Robert Hutchinson]. [my bold]

Not that I especially prize such vulgar terms as the ones in bold from the above passage, but unlike Christians, I do not regard their use as especially immoral. And yet here is a man who does, and who damns atheists for being immoral on the grounds that one must have religion to have morality -- using these very words! So much for religion as bringing about morality. I guess Giles "crapped on" himself there.

Some people never get past diapers in terms of their intellectual development....

Armstrong adds: "For Giles ... arguments become weapons of propaganda, intended not to win an honest and spirited debate, but to 'shut up' the other side." Indeed. And this is because Giles is hardly a man confident in the correctness of his views or interested in unearthing the truth.

I said this before and I'll say it again:

[Those who take religion seriously] scare me for the exact opposite reason I scare them. They want to physically "stamp me out"; I simply remind them of all the questioning and thinking that they have shirked for their whole lives.

I thank Doug Giles for expressing his views on reasoned debate and for providing such an excellent example, in the form of his essay, of how ugly the lack of intellectual confidence that comes with the abandonment of reason can be.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Minor edits.
10-29-07: Added update to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

The "Rights" of Property

The Houston Chronicle recently reported that more and more law schools across the country are offering courses specifically devoted to animal law. Unfortunately, this does not reflect a growing respect for the property rights of animal owners, nor is it merely a symptom of governmental intrusion into yet another area of our lives.

Today, she said, more large firms want to take on animal cases pro bono and that an animal law conference held this spring at Harvard was sold out.

"This decade, an attorney can go into court and not be laughed at for being an animal lawyer, when 10 years ago they would have been laughed at," said Alexander, who helps develop programs for law education and legal practices. "It's gone from the fringe to mainstream."

The recent headlines reflect the shift in society's views about animals and how to protect them, officials said.

"We're at the beginning of the coming of age in animal law," said Amy Bures Danna, an adjunct professor at the University of Houston Law Center and an attorney who takes some animal cases.

"People are becoming more aware of animals and animal protection. Our social values are broadening and are becoming deeper and are accompanying animals in different ways." [bold added]

Instead, this trend represents a disturbing manifestation of a fundamental failure to grasp the concept of rights by those whose duty it is to protect them on a day-to-day basis -- the legal profession.

As the article's lead-in from the Michael Vick story portends -- this "awareness" and these "broadening" "values", reflected in the "coming of age in animal law" reflect a reciprocal societal forgetfulness about the rights of human beings.

The notion that a being has political rights is based on the premise that said being is possessed of the faculty of reason, and can be prevented from exercising this faculty only by the initiation of force by others. Integral to a society-wide respect for individual rights is reciprocity, whereby a rational being understands that to be able to expect the freedom to profit from his own thinking (and that of others via trade), he must respect the rights of others.

Animals possess neither reason nor the ability to understand or respect the rights of others. Therefore, the concept of political rights does not apply to them at all. The only legal protection properly afforded to an animal extends from the property rights of any owner it may have.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a specialization in the practice of law pertaining to animals -- provided it is premised on the protection of the individual rights of rational animals. Too bad that the law schools described in this article are starting to churn out attorneys interested in precisely the opposite goal: the erosion of the rights of the only animals -- humans -- who have them, and the unleashing of irrational animals upon us to boot.

-- CAV

Updates

10-23-07: Minor edit.

Quick Roundup 261

Monument to Che Guevara Now Complete

A Venezuelan group stated that Che Guevara "isn't an example for our children" in a note left at the site of a monument to the self-described "cold killing machine" after it added a few very fitting finishing touches to it, as shown below:


Needless to say, there could be any number of motivations behind the actions of these "artists" from recognition that Che Guevara and everything he stood for is morally wrong to a conviction that he didn't go far enough. Indeed, another article describes them -- without elaboration -- as "leftists". History has shown time and time again that mere opposition to tyranny is not enough to establish freedom.

Nevertheless, I found the reaction of the local government to this expression of freedom of speech in the face of tyranny very interesting.

[O]n Wednesday night (a group) from outside of the municipality inconsiderately destroyed the monument to Che Guevara.

Inconsiderately? Is this the best Mayor Espinoza could do? If Che Guevara were a true revolutionary, embodying high moral ideals, much stronger, condemnatory language was in order. But then, the inevitable comparisons between what was done to this glass wall and what was done by Guevara to real human beings standing in front of walls might have come out.

Is this a public official cynically trying to tamp down a debate that he knows will discredit his government, or is he not himself convinced that he is engaged in a just cause? Either way, this regime appears to be lacking in the element of moral certainty. (And indeed, it also lacks overwhelming popular support as well: "40 per cent of the population opposes [Chavez's] self-styled socialist revolution".) Too bad our own leaders fail to appreciate the moral superiority of freedom. With their help, such regimes would be quite easy to topple.

Townhall: "The opinions expressed are his own."

I know it's boilerplate, but in light of Townhall's disgraceful decision to publish this recent Chuck Colson piece on Ayn Rand, it's more fitting than they intend or realize that they appended it to this Thomas J. Borelli piece on corporate global warming hysteria.

Borelli ends with the following favorable mention of Ayn Rand:

Fueled by a distortion of reality we are witnessing the gradual destruction of capitalism at the hands of CEOs, social activists, power hungry politicians and Hollywood. On the 50th anniversary of "Atlas Shrugged", the real inconvenient truth is watching Ayn Rand's words [of warning] become reality. [bold added]

This column outlines just the beginnings of what happens when, as Chuck Colson might put it, "people relate to one another" with "altruism and self-sacrifice". True, this particular brand of human sacrifice isn't directly attributable to the acceptance of the Bible or "a divine or supernatural dimension to reality". However, global warming hysteria does rest on the acceptance on faith by many people that it is okay to force others to do things in order to avert an impending cataclysm (which is also accepted on faith).

It says something about Townhall, conservatives in general, and Chuck Colson in particular that they will actively slander someone who points out the folly of continuing to carry on with faith and self-sacrifice as they want you to do -- rather than heeding her warnings.

Ayn Rand was famous for saying "Check your premises." She points out plainly that faith is no source of knowledge, and that altruism, which must be accepted at some point on faith, endangers one's life. But Colson and his ilk regard their premises as beyond checking and your life -- which they tell you to sacrifice -- as expendable.

Conservatives constantly claim that religion -- faith, altruism, and self-sacrifice -- is the basis for capitalism and yet very often they run to Ayn Rand when they need to refute an enemy of capitalism. If actions speak louder than words, then it would appear that conservatives themselves do not believe what they say about the basis for capitalism -- and that you should ask yourself whether conservatives are really the friends of capitalism they claim to be.

Racism and Evolutionary Psychology

There is a very interesting discussion of evolutionary psychology over at Myrhaf, which has some bearing on my recent comments on James Watson's recent very embarrassing comments on the intelligence of blacks.

I found the following by John Kim particularly interesting:

[Advocates of evolutionary psychology] not only despise humanities types, they hate Ayn Rand. They consider her philosophy entirely deduced from arbitrary premises.... It shocked me the first time I encountered it, to hear Ayn Rand described that way. [Many] are biological determinists. They actually link free will with religion! ... [bold added]

It is hardly a great leap to get from "no free will" to the premise that, "a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry ... [meaning] ... that a man is to be judged not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of ancestors." [Ayn Rand in "Racism", in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 172]

Indeed, I refused to publish or entertain one comment on that post partially on the grounds that I thought it came from a race-baiter. In terms of implicit views about volition, I see that I wasn't very far from the truth to do so, even if this was in fact an "EPer".

-- CAV

Happy Columbus Day Week!

(And better late than never!)

My birthday falls close enough to Columbus Day that my Dad would often jokingly wish me a "Happy Columbus Day!" instead as I was growing up. In return, when his birthday rolled around in July, I'd sometimes wish him, "Happy Independence Day!" And so it is that I am usually pretty good about remembering Columbus Day -- although this year, I got busy and had to be reminded on the day by my calendar program.

Do you see what is wrong with this picture? You normally can't go through the run-up to some major holiday or anniversary without being bombarded with reminders from all directions -- sometimes for months in advance. Although I don't recall a huge fuss ever being made over Columbus Day as I was growing up, it has taken a beating from multiculturalists for years and seems to have slowly started sinking out of the public view.

This is a big shame, for Christopher Columbus, with his discovery of the New World, helped get the ball rolling for that greatest expression of the ideas of the Enlightenment, the United States of America.

Fortunately, historian Scott Powell didn't forget about Columbus Day. Indeed, he has made the week around Columbus Day a festival over at his blog:

Unlike modern historians, I am a huge fan of Christopher Columbus. I would rank him as one of the ten most important men in history–and for the good! So Powell History is going to celebrate not just Columbus Day, but as a small measure of justice for a man so wrongly villified in our modern culture, a week of Columbus-related posts highlighting his achievements and his significance in world history. [my bold]

So stop by Powell History Recommends for sculpture, paintings, and poetry commemorating this great man of independent vision, and to learn how to begin mounting an intellectual defense of his place in history.

As I have mentioned several times here previously, it was Scott Powell who initially got me interested in working a lot smarter. Were it not for him, I would not have been so well-organized as to necessarily check a calendar program every day. Conceivably, I could have gotten so wrapped up in my work and personal affairs that the day would have passed completely unnoticed. So this year, it isn't much of a stretch to say that I owe it to him to have remembered Columbus Day on Columbus Day in addition to getting to read his blog posts about it.

And for next year? I've added a calendar reminder for early September to consider taking Columbus Day off. Even if I can't do that, at least, I'll be ready the next time that day arrives! As Thomas Bowden once put it, "On Columbus Day, ... we celebrate Western civilization as history's greatest cultural achievement. What better reason could there be for a holiday?"

Thanks again, Mr. Powell!

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Minor edits.

Quick Roundup 260

My Kind of Ghost Story

My mother emailed me the following under the title "Louisiana Ghost Story" some time ago:

This happened about a month ago just outside of Cocodrie, a little town in the bayou country of Louisiana, and while it sounds like an Alfred Hitchcock tale, it's real.

This out of state traveler was on the side of the road, hitchhiking on a real dark night in the middle of a thunderstorm. Time passed slowly and no cars went by.

It was raining so hard he could hardly see his hand in front of his face. Suddenly he saw a car moving slowly, approaching and appearing ghostlike in the rain. It slowly and silently crept toward him and stopped.

Wanting a ride real bad the guy jumped in the car and closed the door; only then did he realize that there was nobody behind the wheel, and no sound of an engine to be heard over the rain. Again the car crept slowly forward and the guy was terrified, too scared to think of jumping out and running.

The guy saw that the car was approaching a sharp curve and, still too scared to jump out, he started to pray and begging for his life; he was sure the ghost car would go off the road and in the bayou and he would surely drown! But just before the curve a shadowy figure appeared at the driver's window and a hand reached in and turned the steering wheel, guiding the car safely around the bend. Then, just as silently, the hand disappeared through the window and the hitchhiker was alone again!

Paralyzed with fear, the guy watched the hand reappear every time they reached a curve. Finally the guy, scared to near death, had all he could take and jumped out of the car and ran to town.

Wet and in shock, he went into a bar and voice quavering, ordered two shots of whiskey, then told everybody about his supernatural experience.

A silence enveloped and everybody got goose bumps when they realized the guy was telling the truth (and not just some drunk).

About half an hour later two guys walked into the bar and one says to the other, "Look Boudreaux, ders dat idiot that rode in our car when we wuz pushin it in the rain."

Not only is the charge that you need ghosts in order to have morality false, you don't even need them to have campfire stories!

Nice Tune

Good friend Adrian Hester recommended the following Brazillian music video to me the other day....

He tells me that the group's name translates to "Mudflaps of Success".

Literate Good Citizen

That sounds almost insulting, as if I don't read for my own enjoyment, but it's the result I got from taking a quiz on reading habits I found at Myrhaf. The results graphic describes me as follows:

You read to inform or entertain yourself, but you're not nerdy about it. You've read most major classics (in school) and you have a favorite genre or two.

That sounds a little better. I've left off the graphic because the bars for its result subcategories don't display properly.

Also, I agree with a commenter on the quiz site that it should have included online reading somewhere.

-- CAV