Smooth Sailing

As I mentioned might be the case in my "OCON '09 Wrap-up" post, a friend of mine from Houston sent me image files from some of the tall ships he photographed during one afternoon of the conference.

These were pier side for the Sail Boston 2009 event, which was running concurrently with the OCON and lasted for another day or so after it ended. With his permission, I'm posting a few shots here. As usual, click for a larger image.

I got these just a couple of days ago, and the nautical theme happens to be a good way for me to start the weekend early: My wife and I will be driving up to Maine for the weekend to visit with her parents, as well as her aunt and uncle and possibly a cousin or three.

I hope you enjoy the pictures. Don't forget to stop by Rule of Reason for this week's Objectivist Roundup if you want some weekend reading.

Also, for those who haven't seen them yet, I have added links to John Lewis's and John Ridpath's respective Tea Party speeches as Item 8 of "OCON '09 Wrap-up."

Enjoy your weekend!

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 453

Robbed

Well, I can now add theft to the long list of annoyances that have plagued my move to Boston. Whoever it was that received my desktop after its manufacturer repaired it and then "cross-shipped" it and his computer, has, as I learned when I called yesterday to ask when I could expect it back, "not been cooperating." I sent his in nearly two weeks ago, the day I received it. If I hadn't received mine by now, it should have been on its way, according to my last conversation with them.

In other words, this person ignored the strange boot menu he got when he powered up the "upgrade" that arrived after he sent his in (It dual boots Windows and Linux.), never bothered to call about the error, and then ignored the calls he got requesting him to send it back. In short, he stole someone else's computer and he knew it. He stole from me. At least I removed the data from it before I sent it in and have full, redundant backups, including the hard drive of the machine it replaced.

I'll end up with a computer as good or marginally better in every respect, but I have now been without my main computer since leaving Houston and will be for at least another week, possibly two. And, of course, this has dragged out incrementally, tossing in good time after bad. Had I known I'd be without my computer for six or seven weeks, and had the money to do so, I might have just sucked it up and bought a new one.

The real kicker is that every time I call these clowns, the first thing I hear is an "offer" for an extended warranty! Ummmm... No thanks. And the new machine had better be as good as they say (and work) or I'll mention the manufacturer by name and tell the whole story in more detail all at once.

Dude, I should have gotten another Dell...

Seriously. On-site repairs!?!

Thoughts on Meetings

Over the course of my work life, I have endured my fair share of time-wasting, counterproductive, and inane meetings. Lifehacker's Gina Trapani discussed some concrete ways to get meetings to speed along some time ago. (I doubt whether making people stand is necessarily a good idea.) I recall finding some of the back-and-forth within the comments worthwhile, too.

What reminded me of the Trapani post was a highly original piece (also via Lifehacker) by Paul Graham that I ran into yesterday evening. It explains -- for the benefit of creative types and management alike -- why meetings are hated and feared by the former (although they are necessary).

Graham notes how "makers" and managers use their time differently, and explains it from there. As with many of his essays, this one is so clear and forceful that the point seems obvious after you read it.

Most powerful people are on the manager's schedule. It's the schedule of command. But there's another way of using time that's common among people who make things, like programmers and writers. They generally prefer to use time in units of half a day at least. You can't write or program well in units of an hour. That's barely enough time to get started.

When you're operating on the maker's schedule, meetings are a disaster. A single meeting can blow a whole afternoon, by breaking it into two pieces each too small to do anything hard in. Plus you have to remember to go to the meeting. That's no problem for someone on the manager's schedule. There's always something coming on the next hour; the only question is what. But when someone on the maker's schedule has a meeting, they have to think about it. [bold added]

Do you manage makers? Are you a managed maker? Either way, you will want to read this all the way through. And it's as engaging as it is insightful and useful.

Myths and Realities about Writing

Erin Doland, a professional writer who is editor-in-chief at Unclutterer, describes how she used to imagine life as a writer:

Before I became a full-time writer, I didn’t give much thought to what a realistic day at the office would be for me. I had an idealized image of a writer in my mind -- one that included afternoon drinks at the White Horse Tavern with Jack Kerouac and Anais Nin -- and most of my wayward fantasies didn’t actually include writing.

This reminds me of two other, more realistic pictures of writing. One, by Tom Shone of The New Yorker, takes a sobering look at "writers who drink." And, on a more positive note, Doland talks about "Having it all."

Lessons for Activists

Amit Ghate points to a story about how to fight off a bureaucracy, and Moe Lane of Red State tells us "How to ruin a professional agitation group's day." (HT: Instapundit)

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected an attribution and made one other minor edit.

Gates and Freedom of Speech

Glenn Reynolds points to a lengthy analysis of the Skip Gates affair in Forbes by Harvey A. Silverglate, who considers it from a legal perspective and concludes that the arrest was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. I found the article interesting and unsatisfying at the same time, but definitely worth reading.

One of the best points of the article is that it does a good job reminding the reader of how dangerous government "restrictions" on freedom of speech can be, and in a way that anyone following this story can appreciate.

Conceding that the Harvard professor made an ass of himself on the day he was arrested, Silverglate paints a more sympathetic picture of Gates by noting that he has in the past opposed aspects of the various campus speech codes that threaten higher education across the country.

Indeed, Professor Gates, to his enormous credit, has parted ways with the ubiquitous speech police on his own and other campuses. In September 1993, Gates wrote for The New Republic a powerful critique of campus "harassment codes" that outlaw unpleasant speech. Gates was dealing with a typical university speech code, such as the one in force at the time (and still in force on campuses all around the country) at the University of Connecticut, that banned "treating people differently solely because they are in some way different from the majority, … imitating stereotypes in speech or mannerisms, … [or] attributing objections to any of the above actions to 'hypersensitivity' of the targeted individual or group."

Gates labeled this hypersensitivity provision "especially cunning" because "it meant that even if you believed that a complainant was overreacting to an innocuous remark, the attempt to defend yourself in this way could serve only as proof of your guilt." In other words, self-defense against claims of uttering "harassing" speech only furthered the culpability of the accused in the Orwellian world of academic censorship.

Under Gates' own analysis of the University of Connecticut "harassment" speech code, neither Officer Crowley's words to Gates, nor the professor's responses, nor the officer's replies to those responses, should prove the guilt of either. There was no violence. There were only words, some of which might have been insulting and otherwise unpleasant. And in a free society, verbal expression--even if disagreeable--should never lead to clamped handcuffs.

Indeed, during discussion pursuant to Monday's post, it became evident that (aside from this problem), the arrest looked pretty dubious even according to the disorderly conduct law under which -- I, no legal expert, think -- it was made!

First, a charge of disorderly conduct would appear to be valid only (rightly or not) if there was actual concern for a riot breaking out. That was obviously not a concern here.

Behavior that might cause a riot. Massachusetts courts have limited the definition of disorderly conduct to: fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose other than to cause public annoyance or alarm. (The statute, however, just says "idle and disorderly persons," a formulation that is, on its own, patently unconstitutional.) Violators may be imprisoned for up to six months, fined a maximum of $200, or both.

The stilted language in the Gates police report is intended to mirror the courts' awkward phrasing, but the state could never make the charge stick. The law is aimed not at mere irascibility but rather at unruly behavior likely to set off wider unrest. Accordingly, the behavior must take place in public or on private property where people tend to gather. While the police allege that a crowd had formed outside Gates' property, it is rare to see a disorderly conduct conviction for behavior on the suspect's own front porch. In addition, political speech is excluded from the statute because of the First Amendment. Alleging racial bias, as Gates was doing, and protesting arrest both represent core political speech.

The one objection I still would have had then also seems to have been answered: Crowley is required by law to identify himself, and he needn't be able to be heard to comply. (I do wonder whether this would leave him no way to defend himself if whether he did so came up in a court case and there was only audio evidence.)

Crowley merely had to display his identification:

Section 98D. Each city or town shall issue to every full time police officer employed by it an identification card bearing his photograph and the municipal seal. Such card shall be carried on the officer's person, and shall be exhibited upon lawful request for purposes of identification.

That said, it is clear to me -- and feel free to correct me if I have made an error here -- that Crowley should not have arrested Gates. They were, to answer my own question, both wrong.

All this said, I remain unsatisfied with the overall analysis. Yes, freedom of speech is protected by the Constitution, and, yes, the mere fact that someone is a government official does not grant him the arbitrary power to punish the rude. But I am concerned that the discussion was not a principled one.

Men living in a society have an inalienable right -- whether a government recognizes it or not -- to freedom of speech. Furthermore, the sole proper purpose of government is to protect that, and all other individual rights we possess. More to the point, our rights are not granted by the government or have any other origin than our nature as rational animals and the context of our living within a society.

Silverglate's analysis seems to suffer at times from a lack of clarity on this point. Below, I consider a couple of examples.

First, while it is true that universities, as government-owned or government-controlled entities, have no business restricting freedom of speech, such government control should be phased out and abolished. First, such control is wrong because it violates property rights. Second, it is impractical since, among many other things, it hamstrings universities from making decisions like, "Do we teach the science of evolution as fact, or will the state force us to teach creationism as science alongside it?"

In other words, Silverglate fails to notice that, although Gates may have been well-intentioned in his opposition to campus speech codes, the problem ultimately arises from the government violating property rights wholesale. This leads it to violate freedom of speech, be it in the name of protecting minorities or in the name of not promoting any ideology during conduct of business legitimate for a private entity, but not for the government.

Second, I thought the following passage also suffered from the same problem.

Today, the law recognizes only four exceptions to the First Amendment's protection for free speech: (1) speech posing the "clear and present danger" of imminent violence or lawless action posited by Holmes, (2) disclosures threatening "national security," (3) "obscenity" and (4) so-called "fighting words" that would provoke a reasonable person to an imminent, violent response. [links dropped]

This may be an accurate legal picture, but how does one make sense of this or determine whether the law adequately protects freedom of speech? (Why do we have these exceptions? Are they all valid? Are they really exceptions?) By way of thinking in terms of principles -- in this case, by noting that we do not have the right to interfere with the exercise of someone else's rights through the initiation of force, the threat thereof, or by helping others do so. (The spoken or written word can do nicely for the last two of these.) Had Silverglate done this, he would have also noticed some more "exceptions."

Take the prohibition against endangering national security. Babbling state secrets can make it impossible for the government to serve in its role as protector of our rights from foreign aggressors. This is why such speech is not legally protected and, more importantly, why we don't have a right to it in the first place.

Considering this principle further, might there be cases where someone's saying something might interfere with the work that the police ought to be doing? This possibility came up as we discussed the case here, and it would appear that the charge of "disorderly conduct" may be an expedient, unprincipled way of addressing this problem which is often used tactically and often abused.

The issue of freedom of speech is certainly important in the Gates affair, but also important is that it exposes a widespread lack of appreciation for the role of government in protecting our individual rights and its underlying cause: a culture-wide failure to appreciate the importance of principles in guiding our thinking, and therefore, our actions.

Barack Obama may soon attack freedom of speech, thanks to the urgings of his friend and advisor, Cass Sunstein. In such a context, I don't know whether to count his and Gates's preoccupation with racial ancestry as a blessing or a curse (i.e., as a distraction or an excuse to them). Whatever the case may be, principles are no luxury to men who would like to remain free.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 452

Still awaiting the arrival of my desktop. Netbook's crawling. If today's roundup seems terse, that would be why.

Enron with Nukes

A system administrator of my past acquaintance stands out in memory for having a particularly ... non-rosy ... outlook on life. He would often say, "Things can always be worse." An article on China's economy that I ran across the other day reminded me of that adage.

"Bat-Shit Crazy"

That's how one small publisher, who welcomes a new policy by the Associated Press, describes it. (HT: Dismuke)

In what appear to be its death throes, the Associated Press has decided to up the ante in its war against fair use. It plans not just to go after people for quoting parts of its news stories, but also merely for linking to its content.

AP will then find itself in an interesting position: with less members, AP has less income while at the same time spending increasingly large amounts on lawsuits as part of its war on links and fair use. If AP starts to lose money, it will have to increase charges, which will in turn drive more members to competing services…and around and around we go until AP is a shell of its former self and the wire service headlines on Google News came out of Reuters or CNN. Eventually AP dies.

Whether, out of financial self-preservation, you join the self-organizing boycott of AP this is going to create or you end up suing them, the end result will be the same for AP.

Duncan Riley further argues that they might take a few newspapers down with them on the way.

Obama's Next Target: Free Speech

Via HBL, I learned that Obama's choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, will argue for "restrictions" on freedom of speech in a book, On Rumors, due to be released this September. (If you need to know why I used scare quotes, read this post on principles by Stephen Bourque. To "restrict" freedom of speech is to kill it, sooner or later.)

Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.

...

Sunstein, trying to [be] fair, argues that libel awards should be capped at $15,000, or at least limited for anyone demonstrating financial hardship. But $15K is the limit you'd pay to your opponent. The legal bill is the scary part, and the reason bloggers already have plenty of reason to be careful about what they say, even if they don't much fear a libel conviction.

...

If this happened, the blogosphere would turn into Pluto overnight. Comments sections would slam shut. Every writer would work on a leash shorter than a shoelace.

Sunstein is an enemy to every news organization and blogger. We should return the favor and declare war on him. [bold added]

Amen, so to speak.

I didn't need Kyle Smith to point out that having a government "Czar" deciding what counts as "truth" in such a scenario would mortally wound freedom of speech. But in case you need an example, Smith notes that Sunstein didn't care for people noting during the presidential campaign that Barack Obama is big pals with left-wing terrorist Bill Ayers -- or at least of them calling a spade a spade when speaking of Ayers.

Wanted

Vigilis cribbed from "The Bureaucrat," by Sergei Eisenstein, shown at right, to create an "age-enhanced mugshot" of your author for a "wanted" poster over at Molten Eagle.

I laughed out loud on sight at that one!

Two Interesting Tech Posts

Via Paul Hsieh -- whose latest editorial against socialized medicine is a must-read -- comes an interesting article on why one should have secure Internet passwords (and how to fix them quickly for those who don't).

Following a link from there, I also found an article about Twitter written for people who, like myself, don't see the point. (And perhaps it's equally good for those who wonder why we don't...)

I am generally a late adopter for most new technologies in part because I prefer to wait to see whether they'll catch on before I devote time and energy to them. In addition, I prefer to delegate bug detection and fixing to the early adopters. And then, with items that aren't free, there's the fact that price drops while quality goes up after initial introduction.

One notable exception was that I saw an immediate need for a netbook shortly after they came out. Mine was 500 smackers. My wife is thinking about one now for work. It will be much better and, I think, 100-200 bucks less than mine.

-- CAV

Were they both wrong?

Over the weekend, a commenter pointed me to some thoughts by Billy Beck about the Skip Gates arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that is worth taking into account, and which pertains to the one issue that has given me the most pause in my thinking about it. Namely: Was Crowley right to arrest Gates? I leaned strongly in Crowley's favor on that question, but still had some nagging doubts.

Since I can't do better than madmax did to introduce it, I'll let him do the honors:

At first I thought [Beck's comments were] typical libertarian anti-state drivel, but lately I have come to the conclusion that as the welfare-state increases (along with smiley-faced fascism), the police are getting more abusive. Beck thinks that Crowley arrested Gates essentially because he didn't like his attitude; i.e., arbitrarily. To me, Gates is clearly an anti-white racist but it may be the case that Crowley was wrong. I don't know. [minor edits]

Gates is clearly a racist, and seems to me to have been baiting Crowley. Having read Crowley's report, his arresting Gates did not strike me as unreasonable, assuming that Gates's actions were indeed interfering with the normal discharge of Crowley's duties. (Whether the charge of disorderly conduct is an appropriate or adequate tool in this case is, itself, an interesting, albeit separate, question.）

But Carlos Miller, to whom Beck links at the end of his post, indicates that the charge of disorderly conduct is frequently abused. Might it have been here? Might Crowley have tried another tack, as another commenter here suggested he should have? For different reasons (to nail down a different factual point and to show that Gates is being less than forthright about another), Ann Althouse suggests (via Glenn Reynolds) making the police recordings of the incident public.

If Crowley had been "acting foolishly," to use President Obama's words in a way he clearly did not intend, then Billy Beck is right on the money when he indicates that Skip Gates blew an opportunity to bring an important issue to the attention of the public.

If Gates finds it necessary, for whatever reasoning, to stake himself to race in a matter like this, then he can have it and be as small and ridiculous as he wants to be.

I have to say that I do not share Beck's apparent certainty that Crowley acted inappropriately. In large part, because my father was a cop, I can see a very good man in Crowley's shoes simply trying to do his job. But because my dad also taught me to think about everything carefully -- and made it clear to me that some policemen are little better than criminals -- I can see it Beck's way, too.

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 451

All He Needs to Know?

Barack Obama, having just finished not reading the bill that would impose slavery on America's medical profession, has apparently also gotten around to not reading this police report concerning the arrest of a combative Harvard professor that he counts as a friend.

Obama called [Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, Jr.] a friend, and said he doesn't know all the facts of the case. Nonetheless, Obama said, anyone would have been angry if treated the way Gates claims police in Cambridge, Mass., treated him. Gates claims he was arrested in his own home after showing ID to police who responded to a report of a possible burglary.

Police say Gates yelled at the officers and initially refused to show his ID. Gates allegedly yelled "this is what happens to a black man in America" and "you don't know who you’re messing with" before he was arrested, and police said he was uncooperative. ( read the arrest report )

"Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof he was in own home," Obama said during a prime-time news conference that otherwise focused on the health care debate.

Gates was arrested because his belligerent, unreasonable behavior was making it impossible for the police to do its job -- in this case, making sure his house wasn't being burglarized.

If my neighbor saw me and an unknown person attempting to break in to my house, I would hope he would call the police (as Lucia Whalen did), whether that neighbor recognized me or not. And upon their arrival, I would hope that the police would show some interest in who I was (as Officer Crowley did).

I would not immediately insinuate that the officer was bigotted and refuse to identify myself (as Gates did) and then caterwaul so loudly as to make it impossible for the responding officer to communicate by radio (as Gates did). Nor would I reply to a request that I move the conversation outside with a schoolyard taunt about speaking to the officer's mother (as Gates did).

And yet Obama -- the same Obama who regarded America-damning bigot Jeremiah Wright as a spiritual mentor for decades -- calls Gates a "friend" and the Cambridge Police "foolish" for doing their job while admitting that he doesn't know the facts of the case. Spit in our faces, Mr. President, and tell us it's raining.

This contempt for the facts is matched only by the injustice towards Crowley (and sometimes the neighbor) of Obama's adoring fans in the media, among whom is Boston's Adrian Walker, whose column, "Hey, Let's Talk," is a fine example of the kind of "reasoning" behind all the calls for Crowley to apologize:

Do I believe race was part of this? Of course it was.

I don't believe for one second that Alan Dershowitz, in the same situation, would have ended up with a mug shot. First, his neighbor probably wouldn't have called the police, even if she didn't recognize him. Second, Crowley probably would have gone away.

"Skip Gates has spent his entire life talking about race in a way that makes people contemplative and gets them to think about it in a positive way," [He stopped and undid that on July 16. --ed] Leone said. "For him, this is a perfect opportunity to educate people."

Leone believes no one covered themselves in glory here. "Crowley got his back up," Leone said. "He's saying all he did was respond. I think both of them, privately, are saying, 'I could have handled this better.'"

I think Crowley should apologize. But here's what I really wish: I wish Gates and Crowley would sit down and talk to each other, no lawyers, no cameras, maybe a friendly columnist to facilitate.

I wish they could sit across lunch from each other and have an honest, no-posturing conversation about what happened.

Walker contradicts himself in the last two paragraphs above. In the first of these, he is laying the blame on Crowley. In the second, he's treating this as if it is just some big misunderstanding. If Crowley acted unjustly, why does Gates need to fool around talking to him? And if there was a misunderstanding, why must only Crowley apologize? In either case, it is clear that Walker has already absolved Gates of any fault.

Crowley should apologize only if making his arrest was wrong. He refuses to do so and his union has stated that what he did was, in fact, "consistent with his training ... and acceptable legal standards." Gates, on the other hand, is already planning to make a "documentary" about this affair. Please read the arrest report if you wonder about the scare quotes.

Even if, for the sake of argument, Crowley owes an apology, Gates definitely owes one. His conduct was exceptionally rude and completely inappropriate.

Fashion Peeve Trifecta

Yesterday, at a bus stop, I saw some guy walking up in a suit and a ball cap. The widespread fashion of wearing ball caps annoys me anyway, especially when they are worn backwards, but seeing one worn with a suit really makes my teeth curl. How can anyone look more clueless?

Leave it to Fail Blog to show how!

Oh, and while I'm annoying myself with peeves, I'll get tattoos and plumber pants out of my system, too. From the second of these, which I recall from some time ago, I found myself in the "Amen corner" on this comment: "[T]he few women I've seen who looked good in low-rider jeans, would have looked much better in something else."

Houston Chronicle Linkage

And no, I am not interested in online dating ...

... that "Online Dating Annoyances" link above on tattoos I found via the Houston Chronicle, who I am happy to see, also linked here and to Brian Phillips's blog, Live Oaks, yesterday.

And that's kinda nice, since they linked to my post, "Forfeiting the Culture War," on the day after I forfeited my chance to appear in this week's Objectivist Roundup!

Honduras Compared to North Korea

Yassir Arafat's fellow Nobel Peace Laureate, Costa Rica's Oscar Arias, is unhappy with Honduras for not agreeing to accept the return of mini-Hugo Chavez as its president:

A frustrated Arias said Honduras had turned into the North Korea or Albania of Central America.

[Manuel] Zelaya, exiled in neighboring Nicaragua, has said he will return "by air, land or sea."

But despite increasing international isolation, the interim leaders have maintained that Zelaya will be arrested if he attempts to return to the country.

Well. I guess if a terrorist can win a "peace prize," it follows that a nation following its own constitution would be insulted by a "diplomat."

I support Honduras and like it more every day.

-- CAV

Updates

7-28-09: Corrected URL for a link.

Forfeiting the Culture War

Woody Allen, a comedian beloved by lefties everywhere, once said that, "Eighty percent of success is showing up." Too bad that so many of his fans seem to think that eighty percent is enough when it comes to the culture war. Two stories that caught my eye this morning illustrate what I mean.

In the first, C. August names the issue clearly when he discusses the political rise of fundamentalists in Portland, Oregon, a city with a reputation for being so far to the left that one USA Today blogger he cites, "likened the Portland ethos to a disease, worrying ... about it 'metastasizing' to other parts of the country." (Conservatives tend to equate collectivism and skepticism with secularism. This is mistaken at best because both: (1) Collectivism neither exclusively nor necessarily follows from secularism; and (2) Skepticism and uncertainty are not the only alternative to religious faith. That said, the dominant philosophical outlook among secularists is skepticism and most secularists are leftists. I am, myself, neither a skeptic nor a collectivist, but an atheist and a capitalist. It is important to note further that atheism only describes my position regarding the question of the existence of God. It does not describe what I do hold to be true.)

It should not be surprising that the moral vacuum created by the nihilism of the left--the "city's secularism and skepticism" noted by the author--is driving people to the only alternative they know of: Christian altruism. That the progressives in this example are already gleefully practicing altruists, added to the fact that man requires moral standards whether he recognizes that fact or not, means that the denial of any objective moral code by the progressives makes them ripe candidates to be subsumed by their more philosophically consistent brethren. Of course, the Christians don't offer an objective moral code grounded in the facts of reality and the nature of man--only rational egoism is such an objective moral code--but because progressives deny the existence of objective truth to begin with... [bold added]

The secularists are certainly there in droves, but they're losing the culture war precisely because they have nothing to offer as a viable alternative to religious dogma. Most of them accept the altruism and collectivism of religion by default. Religion preaches these, too, but claims to offer certainty and standards -- two things possible and necessary for a proper human life.

We see this problem on a different scale in the lament of a "humanist" father that his children are asking him questions that presuppose the existence of God and that there seem not to be very many books around to help his children reach adulthood with a secular perspective:

... Are there any children's books, I wondered, that directly address religious questions from a humanistic point of view? Not necessarily an anti-Bible, but a strong alternative or counterpart in a secular key.

I called a friend of mine, who works for a humanist charity and is a parent too, feeling sure he would have some sage advice. His response surprised me. Not only did he not know of any good humanist children's books, he said, he didn't like the idea of such a thing. Rather than attempt to counter-indoctrinate kids with explicitly anti-religious messages, he argued, far better simply to expose them to the widest range of reading as possible - weren't Roald Dahl and Dr Seuss essentially humanistic? - and expose them to the manifold religions and philosophies in the world in order to nourish their imaginations and sense of wonder about the Universe, and help them view religion in a comparative context. The antidote I was seeking, he suggested, was to be found in books of evolution and science fiction, not didactic manifestos. [bold added]

Before I go on, I want to be clear that I sympathize with author Danny Postel: Helping a child develop a rational, independent mind despite the saturation of the culture with religious influence is exceedingly difficult. (And even if one does his best, human beings have free will. A child still also has to choose to think.)

That said, the very premises that govern most secular people -- See the bold above. -- cause them to see the issue as either indoctrination or providing no guidance at all. There is nothing wrong with reading about many religious traditions, but what good is it if the child has no concept of rationality? Or no standard by which to judge these traditions?

That Postel gets hung up on relatively unimportant content -- various religions and whether there is a God -- rather than concerning himself with how to teach his children how to think is important here. This premature concern tells me that he himself is crippled by the skepticism he extols, by the idea that certainty is impossible to man. The fact is that human consciousness, like anything else in existence, has a specific nature, and so functions in a specific way (i.e., by operating logically on sensory input and the concepts formed therefrom).

There are many reasons to be concerned about the cultural influence of religion, but whether a child believes (or thinks he believes) in God is among the least of these. If a child learns the proper method of dealing with such questions (and that method is generally applicable to all questions), he will be able to take care of himself. But one who rejects certainty as such will both fail to appreciate this fact and thus make religion seem more attractive to his children.

For example, saying something like, "Many people think that there is a God, but I don't," is fine, but it is just a start, and what one says (and teaches explicitly or demonstrates) in such situations is crucial. Unfortunately, Postel falls right into a trap of his own skeptical making:

"First, Theo, your question presumes that Jesus was God," I responded. "Many people, like mommy, believe he was, but many others don't. It also presumes that there is a God - we don't know for sure that there is." "I think there is," he retorted. "There may very well be a God, Theo. But not everyone agrees on that - there are many people who doubt there is a God. We might never know for sure if there is or not," I told him. "When we die we'll know," he came back. "Maybe," I said. "But maybe not."

If Postel is, as I suspect, a typical skeptic, all claims to knowledge are, to him, unwarranted and, as such, equivalent to religious faith. Furthermore, he would not see any consistent connection between perceptual knowledge and abstractions. This could explain why it seems not to occur to him to ask something like, "How do you know that Jesus is God?" (And if he saw such a connection, he would also realize that this is the first part of a line of questioning that will quickly cause young Theo to run out of ground to stand on.)

In addition to not understanding how to deal with (or demonstrate what is wrong with) arbitrary claims, an improper understanding of concept-formation on Postel's part could also account for his immediately attacking his son's premises rather than keeping the conversation on an appropriate level of abstraction for a child. His children may or may not be old enough to discuss such an issue, but no child is too young to learn that if he wants to say something is true, he ought to be prepared to back himself up with facts.

Postel's children may or may not be independent enough to begin to question religion on their own and they may or may not encounter a thinker like Ayn Rand during their intellectual development, but Postel's own philosophy is forcing him to leave many things to chance that he does not have to.

Worse, he may, with his haphazard, indiscriminate pedagogical approach and discomfort with what he takes to be certainty, even cause his children to have an incorrect idea of what being certain or rational or secular can and ought to mean. He risks making faith look like the shortest (or only) path to knowledge as they reach young adulthood, and are actively seeking guidance on philosophical issues in general and ethical questions in particular. Which religion, if they take it seriously enough, will not matter.

We have seen this before and we will see it again. If eighty percent of success is showing up, then the rest is knowing how to win. And the first part of that is knowing that you can know. Otherwise, you might as well show up for a ball game without even wearing a uniform and gape while the referee records a forfeit.

-- CAV

PS: It is important to note that secularism is properly only a position regarding a common belief and is not, as such, a coherent view of the world. Common cultural baggage aside, there is a need to go beyond simply opposing religion. It is not enough just to be a secularist. One must also offer an alternative to religion on every type of question it attempts to address. The fact that leftists are the largest fraction of secularists both obscures this fact and makes the position good polemical fodder for many less-than-forthright religious opponents.

Quick Roundup 450

Where there's a Will, ...

Any time I see a reference to list like this, I take a quick look to see whether a particular prank pulled at my alma mater made the list. I was not disappointed.

In 1988, a group of students at Rice decided that the 2,000 pound statue of William Marsh Rice would probably prefer to face the library instead of having his back to it. So, obviously, they moved it. After a couple of botched attempts, the pranksters got serious. They got plans of the statue from the library to figure out the exact weight, then built some A-frames with one-ton hoists on either side. After practicing with a Toyota a couple of times, they got the hang of things and headed to campus to give Mr. Rice a better view. They were caught moving the A-Frames across campus by some cops, but managed to convince them that they were part of a senior project. They successfully moved the statue, but one of them, Patrick Dyson, was caught and made to pay the cost of moving William back to his rightful position, which for some reason was going to cost up to five times as much as it cost to get him in the new spot. Students rallied behind Dyson, designing t-shirts that said "Where there's a Willy, there's a way," and raised more than enough money to turn Rice back around.

Somehow, I'd never heard that one of the pranksters had been caught.

Uncluttering Two-Fer

Last Friday, I hurriedly dashed off a post about being better organized with my time and pointed to a post over at Unclutterer. I highly recommend stopping by there some time and taking a look around. I found another pair of posts there while I revisited in order to think about the time issue: "Reader question: What should I store in a fireproof box?" and "Reader question: Fireproof storage, part two."

I already use a fireproof box and off-site storage of electronic files, but I still learned something useful from each of these posts when I compared notes.

The Buzz Aldrin Punch Hoax

Ran across this when I became curious about Bart Sibrel:

Sibrel has a sore, bruised jaw?

How hard is that to fake? He probably went home and hit himself in the face with a monkey wrench.

There were witnesses? It was reported on all the news services?

It doesn't say what the lighting conditions were, but it's possible that it could play tricks to make it look as though Buzz's fist was propelled into Bart's face. Or maybe Bart attacked Buzz's helpless knuckles with his chin.

Or maybe nothing happened at all.

It's an oldie, but a goodie! Read the whole thing. (HT: Mike Zorn, who does all the debunking of Sibrel you really need in a few short, economical paragraphs.)

Obama's Pick for Surgeon General

Many, especially on the left, are nattering about the fact Barack Obama, a smoker, has chosen someone who is overweight as Surgeon General. But Regina Benjamin's size is nowhere near as big an issue as what her past career says about Obama's priorities.

Stella Zawistowski nails Obama to the wall:

... Let's leave aside for the moment what the Surgeon General actually does, most of which does not fall under the proper function of government as a protector of individual rights, and consider what Mr. Obama's choice says about his vision. ...

This is whom the President views as the ideal doctor. Not a brilliant neurosurgeon who makes a groundbreaking discovery; not the owner of a successful practice who makes money by providing services his patients need. Rather, Obama has chosen as his model of the best that medicine can be -- an altruist, a doctor who is willing to provide care regardless of how well she is paid for it, willing to work in a devastated area of the country without extra remuneration, all out of brother-love.

It's this at best -- or the power that a President and a Congress, both apparently in the habit of enacting into law unread legislation -- hope to achieve.

-- CAV

Forty Years Yesterday

I was too young to remember the Apollo 11 mission to the moon, but have seen the footage and read many accounts about that glorious event. Ayn Rand wrote what I regard as both the best account ("Apollo 11", which can be found in The Voice of Reason) and the the best cultural commentary, "Apollo and Dionysus," (which also appears in Return of the Primitive).

I highly recommend reading the latter if you'd like to understand why I found the below video almost perfectly fitting for this anniversary.

On one level, Buzz Aldrin giving this mealy-mouthed and dishonest provocateur (one Bart Sibrel) the only kind of answer his ilk will acknowledge is very funny.

But within a cultural context, I find it sad, and it makes me angry. Mankind is an accomplished race, and yet we are grounded on our home planet due largely to a failure to understand property rights and apply the principle to space exploration. Worse, this grounding will probably extend into the foreseeable future because our culture is so primitive that, for example, conspiracy theories like the one peddled by Sibrel flourish. You can't expect a groundswell of support for private property from a mostly irrational culture .

The second man to have stepped foot on the moon on that glorious day neither should have also been one of the last nor should he have to fend off such a small adversary.

Take a moment to celebrate the moon mission, but don't forget that it symbolizes how bright our future can be when men of reason are free to create and profit from the kind of creativity that makes such things possible.

In the important sense that the moon mission was a government effort, rather than a private one, it was botched. But man reached the moon anyway. Just imagine what we could do if we worked to make America even as free as it was forty years ago, and realize that there is no need to be satisfied with that -- with any vestige of government control of the economy.

Buzz Aldrin's fight is our fight, but winning it will take more than fists. It will require two much more powerful weapons: The right ideas and persuasion of those open to reason.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Minor edits.

Quick Roundup 449

Defense vs. Freedom and Domestic Tranquility?

Mike N of The New Clarion and commenter JG here inform me that Congress is close to passing a major expansion of so-called "hate crime" law as a component of a defense appropriations bill.

Some 45 states have hate crime statutes, and investigations and prosecutions would remain mainly in state and local hands. But the bill provides federal grants to help state and local officials with the costs of prosecuting hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles. The federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state does not have jurisdiction or is unable to carry out justice.

At this juncture, it is worth noting the double blow against government protection of individual rights this represents, as pointed out long ago in The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds, by Tammy Bruce:

[L]et's say that both of the victims are gay. The grocery-store clerk ... kills his victim because he hates gay people. In the ... carjacking, the guy wants the woman's car, she's in the way and represents everything he hates (he's poor and disenfranchised, she is not), so he hates her and kills her. Whereas the grocery store clerk is still guilty of a hate crime, the carjacker is not, despite the fact that they both killed a gay woman. The actions were the same. The only difference is what the person was thinking when he committed the crime (p. 46).

In other words, rather than working to make individuals safe from all crime, Congress has decided to make only certain individuals safer -- if they fall victim to people it deems "guilty" of "hate" (correctly noted to be an emotion by Mike N).

Weasel words about this bill not affecting "protected speech" to the contrary, it would, if passed, result in the exactly such a threat long term, and the short-term siphoning of government attention away from promoting domestic tranquility (i.e., fighting all crime) and the devotion of more on violating our freedom -- all in the name of defending us from foreign aggression.

Veritas de Caritate

Stephen Bourque takes a look at the recent papal encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, and finds that it "is essentially a socialist manifesto," but not before noting how the Pope's open alliance with the left can be helpful to advocates of individual rights:

In martial arts, a basic principle of dealing with two simultaneous attackers is to maneuver oneself so that they are both in view in one direction: in front or to one side. To be confronted by two enemies at once is problem enough, but to be between them is exceptionally difficult - one's attention is split, and it is necessary to continually shift focus from one attacker to the other. It is the same in military affairs. A war is more difficult when it is fought on two fronts. An army's resources are divided and spread thin, and if the attacking enemies have dissimilar natures, an effective repulsion may require different strategies and equipment for each enemy even when one's fundamental defensive principles are constant.

Bourque explains further what he means, but a corollary of it is that now is not the time to help those who "defend" capitalism on religious grounds -- or think that religion and capitalism are otherwise compatible -- evade the fact that their ideas are killing capitalism.

Their support does not help us defend capitalism, and every inch of indulgence we grant their unjustified beliefs is that much distance we are placing ourselves closer to attack from both sides.

Walter Cronkite Dies

For a good laugh, we can see how Barack Obama wants to be remembered from his statement about Walter Cronkite's recent investment in agricultural real estate:

"For decades, Walter Cronkite was the most trusted voice in America," said Obama in a White House statement.

"His rich baritone reached millions of living rooms every night, and in an industry of icons, Walter set the standard by which all others have been judged."

...

"But Walter was always more than just an anchor. He was someone we could trust to guide us through the most important issues of the day; a voice of certainty in an uncertain world," said Obama. [bold added]

Here are a couple of other pieces about Walter Cronkite I learned about through HBL. They're from the right, but still worthwhile. The last quote from the second of these is quite apropos, as it reminds me of the way some religious conservatives like to claim that Christianity is not an ideology, while at the same time demonstrating the even Cronkite knew on some level that his own profession was biased:

Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents... Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don't have, and some people interpret that to be liberal. It's not a liberal, it's humanitarian and that's a vastly different thing.

Oh yeah, and it's a good example of the argument from intimidation.

And a deliberate conflation of the concepts of good will and altruism.

Buh-bye, Walter. You're dead. And that's the way it is.

And Speaking of Bad Reporting...

Sandy Szwarc of Junkfood Science has a few interesting notes about a funny thing that happened to a scientific story on the way to the public forum.

The long-awaited research on the effects of calorie restriction on aging in rhesus monkeys from the University of Wisconsin and Wisconsin National Primate Research Center have just been released. It found no statistically significant difference in the number of deaths among the monkeys who've been eating a calorie-restrictive diet for more than 20 years compared to the monkeys who've been allowed to eat ad lib all day as much as 20% over their normal calories.

No, that's not what made the news, but what Szwarc suggests should have been reported regarding a recent, widely-publicized study.

California vs. Texas

Amit Ghate notes that, "If a particular set of 144,000 people left California -- a state of 38,000,000 inhabitants -- half of its income tax revenue would be lost," while, on the lighter side, Amy Mossoff points us to a hilarious obituary of the "King of Pop Culture."

During that period, camp insiders say the increasingly psychotic state began driving away its long time professional management team and support crew. In its place, it assembled an entourage of con men and embezzlers, some of whom stoked California's increasingly bizarre environmental paranoia. It was seldom seen in public without a breathing mask to ward off imagined pollutants.

Heh! And it's all that good!

Texas, on the other hand, may currently have the eighth-lowest cost of living in the country, but it is in danger of going, "in the direction of California--more social programs, more regulations, and higher taxes."

Looking to Follow

Qwertz is still around, I am happy to note. He's thinking about Twitter and looking for suggestions as to whom to follow.

I'll stop by there from time to time to see what his commenters say about that.

-- CAV

Uncluttering

It is either particularly ironic or quite apropos, depending on how I look at it, that I find myself writing about uncluttering at a time like this: While our move to Boston has presented us with an ideal opportunity to unclutter, our schedule has, so far, permitted only halting progress towards that goal. Progress freezes, for the most part, once again this afternoon.

But we are making progress. (No, Bill, I haven't forgotten to post pictures!) And the big advantage of using the techniques of distributed cognition is that interruptions at least don't completely derail you.

Yet a post on "10 Uncluttering Things to Do Every Day" over at Unclutterer struck a chord with me because of its use of a thought-provoking phrase: "time clutter." I'm either falling victim to that this morning or it seems that way to me because of the cumulative effects of -- deep breath -- having moved so recently, taken an intensive course immediately after showing up, traveling out of the country soon after that, slipping in and out of OCON for a few days, taking a beating on the office equipment front, and now, heading out of town (again) for the weekend. I have been busy, and, as a result, really have not gotten to establish a routine. This constantly feeling off-balance has got to stop.

So that -- establishing a routine -- will be my next goal. The phrase "time clutter" somehow made it click for me sooner rather than later. Despite having finally moved, I am in a transitional period, and that's bad for a creature of habit like myself. On that score, I suspect that a further part, elaborating on Step 3 ("Plan Your Perfect Day") will be a big help. Part of my "perfect day" on Sunday will be revisiting those posts after considering in general what a "perfect day" will be has percolated in my mind a bit -- not to mention what my own two additional steps might be of the "10" referred to by the title of that post. (The post actually lists eight steps. The comments to that post may be helpful, and if you feel inclined, feel free to make your own suggestions here.)

I suspect that I found the idea of "time clutter" so thought-provoking because the analogy to physical clutter reinforced the notion of having a set schedule as a kind of "time scaffolding" on which to organize my days.

That said, it's off for the weekend again, after I negotiate the rest of today's slightly treacherous timescape!

-- CAV

Quick Roundup 448

A Threat? To Whom?

CNN calls the swine flu a "threat" to the Islamic hajj season. Too bad that dying during this pilgrimage is widely regarded as a one-way ticket to heaven, and that so many Moslems hold their host countries in the West in such low esteem.

I would hope that there are "concerns that the Muslim pilgrimage will hasten the spread of swine flu."

Objectivist Roundup

Netvibes is down this morning, so I'm flying blind. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that Titanic Deck Chairs is hosting this week's edition. Update: Here it is -- and it's now a terrific two!

Flying Slow

Besides flying blind, the near-ubiquitous obsession of web "developers" with CPU- and bandwidth- gobbling pages has made my netbook and its mere 1 GB of memory fly like a bee and sting like a butterfly lately. My desktop, which was defective, failed around the time of the move, or got damaged during the move has a CPU over three times faster and 6 GB of RAM.

Despite some helpful hints from commenters, I never was able to isolate the problem. The unit still being under warranty, I called tech support about the problem. At worst, the manufacturer would repair it and send me a bill if they thought it was damaged, and then my insurance would cover it. So I sent it in and have been eagerly awaiting its arrival since.

It arrived yesterday -- or so I thought. According to my packing slip, which was for the correct computer, the problem was with the video card and I won't be billed. Great. So where is it?

Either my desktop manufacturer has merged or it shares a repair facility with another. Whatever the case, I opened the box only to find someone else's (vastly inferior) computer. Well, okay, it was the same color. But it wasn't even built by the same maker. So I get to wait about another two weeks for that to be straightened out -- or to start raising hell until I get a new replacement of at least equal value.

And if I do see the unit I shipped in again, this incompetence has me wondering whether it really will be repaired.

Handsome Devil

Love the fish. Enjoying the groans. Own back blistered from patting it so hard over a clever pun, if I say so myself.

Botanical Goodness

Some beautiful pictures are posted over at Thrutch, in case you haven't stopped by there in a while.

Laughs

A good friend mentioned the above comic via email some time back.

Update: Trey Givens notes a mean-spirited side to XKCD I wasn't previously aware of. Disappointing.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Updated last section. (2) Added link to Carnival. (3) Fixed an incorrect link.

Two Cracks to Slip Through

A venomous rant by Maureen Dowd shows us exactly how and why Judge Sonia Sotomayor's opponents haven't a prayer of stopping her from reaching the Supreme Court -- barring a "meltdown" on her part or a near-miraculous epiphany about the proper role of a Supreme Court justice on theirs.

Two popular misconceptions -- one about the proper, non-cognitive role of emotions and one about the proper role of a Supreme Court justice -- are shared by her proponents and opponents alike, shielding her from the criticism she deserves now.

First, we have the soul-body dichotomy, which manifests here as the notion that reason and emotions are opposites, and that our choice between them is either-or.

Despite the best efforts of Republicans to root out any sign that Sonia Sotomayor has emotions that color her views on the law, the Bronx Bomber kept a robotic mask in place.

A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction are out to trip her up.

Don't get hung up on the sexist and racist slur against males of European descent. That's just a smear against Dowd's real targets -- people having Western values. She makes her smear by arbitarily equating them with various negative stereotypes of Republicans. (Why else would race and sex matter?) The important thing here is the glee that Dowd shows about how easily -- if we take her assessment at face value -- that Sotomayor is foiling the Republican attempts to call her out on a vice that Dowd herself admits she has. Sotomayor is succeeding simply by acting "robotic."

How robotic? Take a gander:

She even used a flat tone when talking about the "horrific tragedy" of 9/11, when she was living near the World Trade Center.

Even setting aside the mislabeling of this atrocity as a "tragedy," this is bizarre. Did this not anger and frighten Sonia Sotomayor, herself? Does Judge Sotomayor not care about the victims of those events? And is she not confident enough in the justice of the laws and founding principles of this nation to think that, within her prospective role as a Supreme Court justice, she would be doing her part -- whatever her decisions -- to ensure that America remains strong enough at least to live to fight another day?

The ease with which Sotomayor's ruse seems to be working can be explained by the acceptance on both sides of this debate of the soul-body dichotomy. Both see reason and emotion as opposites, with each side paying lip-service at different times to the idea that either reason is man's tool of cognition or that emotions are. This time, the conservatives are holding the banner of reason (although often upside down), while the left believes emotions are needed in applying or interpreting the law.

So the conservatives are parroting without grasping the content of charges like those made by ARI's Tom Bowden that Sotomayor is unqualified for this position due to her belief that objectivity and impartiality are impossible. They know enough to try to trip her up on the grounds that she will rule based ultimately on her emotions, but, failing to understand the true nature of emotions, don't see her iciness as the red flag that it is.

Emotions are not tools of cognition, but they do reflect one's values and motivate one's actions. A sitting judge must apply logic rigorously to all questions that come up, but this does not preclude anger at massive injustice or harm to the country one is sworn to protect. Reason and emotion can and -- when one's principles are objective -- will end up on the same side.

And that brings up the second point.

The soul-body dichotomy is just the start of the difficulties of Sotomayor's senatorial adversaries. The other "crack" our suddenly snake-like nominee is slithering through is that between originalism (which is widely mistaken for judicial objectivity) and "legislating from the bench" (a dangerously imprecise term for non-objectivity). Besides explaining this better than I could, Tara Smith succinctly shows why this is happening:

While each of these reasons may help to explain Originalism's appeal, none of them captures the heart of the issue. The deeper reason that Originalism will not die, I think, is that it has staked out the moral high ground, championing the objectivity of interpretation that is essential to the ideal of the rule of law. Anything other than fidelity to the written words, it seems, surrenders us to the rule of mere men (the individual justices on the bench).

Or so things would appear.

What I will suggest is that the very objectivity which explains Originalism's appeal is misunderstood by Originalists themselves. And part of the reason that criticisms have not inflicted more crippling damage is that the leading alternatives also suffer from confusions about appropriate standards of objectivity in the legal domain -- which many people sense, I think, and which sends them back to the apparently safer harbor of Originalism. [bold added]

Writing elsewhere, Smith notes a big problem with originalism:

The charge of "judicial activism" typically condemns proper activity on the part of judges along with improper activity. It has become dangerously commonplace to equate a judge's support for overturning a law with pernicious activism. Prevailing wisdom holds that we can identify "activists" simply by counting up the number of times a judge rules against existing laws or government practices. Notice that by that logic, the only way for a judge to avoid overstepping his authority is to engage in no activity--to simply rubberstamp whatever the legislature and other agencies of government serve up. What, by this reasoning, is the point of having a Supreme Court? Some laws should be struck down. ... Judges who so rule are acting responsibly and fulfilling their function. [bold added]

And she later explains what ought to be going on in hearings like this:

The salient question in assessing any nominee, then, is not whether a judge takes action, but the factors that guide his actions. To be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, a person must, at minimum, understand three basic facts: First, that individual rights are broad principles defining the individual's freedom of action. The familiar rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness subsume a vast array of particular exercises of this freedom, some explicitly named in the constitution (e.g., the freedom of speech) and some not (the right to travel). Second, he must understand that the government's sole function is to protect individuals' freedom of action. As Jefferson explained, it is "to secure these rights, [that] governments are instituted among men." Third, he must recognize that our government properly acts exclusively by permission. Articles I, II and III specify the powers of the three branches of government and the 10th Amendment expressly decrees that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the states or by the people. The government, in other words, may do only what it is legally authorized to do. [bold added]

But for this to happen, someone in the Senate needs to understand what qualifies someone to sit on the Supreme Court. Until then, Dowd will get to crow about her inept heroine parrying even more inept blows:

The judge's full retreat from the notion that a different life experience is valuable was more than necessary and somewhat disappointing. But, as any clever job applicant knows, you must obscure as well as reveal, so she sidestepped the dreaded empathy questions -- even though that's why the president wants her.

"We apply law to facts," she told Kyl. "We don’t apply feelings to facts."

To an originalist, that reply is the sound of the oven timer going off. To someone interested in objective law who understands that the law must sometimes be interpreted in light of objective principles, that's the signal that some more time and a thermometer are needed for that goose.

During the rest of her column, Dowd wallows about in her smear of "white Republican men," making the point that many Republicans are, under the skin, also really just fellow emotionalists. (I agree with her there.) Her point in doing so is to is to make sure that reason never rears its head -- ugly to her -- as a serious threat to the left again. She wants us all to think -- no, to feel -- that objectivity is a mere figment. (I emphatically and confidently disagree with her about that.)

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Corrected a typo. (2) Added hyperlink for "soul-body dichotomy." (3) Changed "ruling from the bench" to "legislating from the bench."

Quick Roundup 447

A Cultural Disease Goes Merrily On

Jim Crow, the political expression of white racism, has, fortunately, been dead for decades. And now, we have a black President: So, in one sense, this story about a small town in the Mississippi Delta electing its first black mayor isn't really news.

But in another unfortunate sense, it is.

Some youngsters ran into [defeated incumbent Robert] Fava's store to taunt him. "They was pulling down their pants, shouting, 'Kiss my black ass, because we got a black mayor', swinging their things around and throwing stuff," said Jennifer Green, 31, a black mother of 10.

There is no excuse for insulting behavior like this: indecent exposure and vandalism, at minimum. Racism is wrong regardless of who is on the receiving end.

And so is crime, for that matter.

How Not to Address Racially-Motivated Acts

And I hope a different electoral result in the town of Alligator would not have looked like this:

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

The solution, as I have written before, to racially-motivated crime is to prosecute actual crime to the fullest extent of the law regardless of its motivation.

The solution to criminal acts is for the government to take the criminals off the streets and punish them for their crimes. The solution to racism is cultural change, which individual citizens must work for through rational persuasion. For the government to fail to do the first, or -- as the agent of force that it is -- to attempt to bypass the second, as it does all the time, is to push our society wholesale towards anarcho-tyranny.

In one sense, a lack of respect for the rights of others such as this should come as no surprise: Our government has been excusing the violation of property rights for a very long time based on the presumption of ignoble sentiments on the parts of owners. Here is the latest example:

The waters were still and the gates locked at the Valley Swim Club Thursday. Board members decided to close the private Huntington Valley, Pa., club for the day as it combats accusations of racism for booting 65 mostly minority day campers from its grounds without explanation late last month.If this incident turns out to have been motivated by racism, the proper response is to ostracize members of this club, and make it known far and wide that it is full of bigots.

Whatever the reason, the fact is that the kids were simply removed from the property, and not physically harmed in any way. There not being a violation of anyone's rights, the government has no business launching an investigation into how this club disposed of its own property.

"Hate crime" laws -- which punish people for their opinions -- and the trampling of property rights do nothing to persuade individuals that racism is wrong, but they do set an intolerable precedent for the government (and, arguably, private citizens) to violate the individual's rights to speech and property.

But just as we protect the innocent from unjust criminal prosecution by insisting on proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, so must we protect the freedom of everyone by permitting bigots to behave like fools (but only so long as they are not violating anyone's individual rights).

If the owners of this pool are bigots, make it known far and wide. Ostracize them. Make membership in that club a badge of shame. But do not compound injustice with tyranny by calling for or sanctioning the government's dictating to private citizens how to use their own property.

Well, It Finally Happened

A teenager has walked straight into a manhole while texting. That comes on the heels of a mass transit accident in Boston caused by an operator doing the same.

If The FDA were in charge of telecommunications, I guess it would consider banning all cell phones with texting capability.

Up

Mrs. Van Horn and I watched Disney's Up in 3D this weekend and I found it enjoyable despite my disappointment with its unjust portrayal of businessmen and its ecology-tainted theme. The movie has other weaknesses, too: Most notably, it confounds altruism with goodwill.

On the former complaint, the movie opens with a perfect example of a popular left-wing myth about property rights that Tom Bowden addressed in his recent OCON course, "Property Rights and Wrongs:" Its protagonist is the lone property owner holding out in the midst of a huge development, his house and yard being completely surrounded by active demolition and construction. As Bowden indicated in the course, this is ridiculous. A developer would line up his property purchases before doing anything like that, and if he couldn't get the land he needed, he'd develop elsewhere.

Bowden's refutation has always seemed like common sense to me, but after hearing Bowden make it explicit, I see the value in doing exactly that when appropriate.

Having said that, I found the movie's development of the main character poignant and enjoyed seeing the old man come alive again after rediscovering his youthful sense of adventure.

-- CAV

OCON '09 Wrap-up

As I mentioned previously, a trip out of the country caused me to miss the first half of this year's OCON, although it took place in Boston, where I now live. I also decided -- correctly, I still think -- that diving into a full schedule of activities on the heels of that trip and a cross-country move would be a little too much, and went for a relatively light schedule of (mainly afternoon/evening) activities and socializing.

But that doesn't mean I don't wish I could have attended the entire week. I really enjoyed the conference at Telluride two years ago and see that several bloggers who attended this year wrote about their experiences. For my own convenience and for that of any who didn't attend, I present this roundup of information on the conference.

If you have further posts or interesting links I haven't included, feel free to write me about them or mention them in the comments.

1. Not tweeting (yet?) myself, I nevertheless will start by mentioning that Diana Hsieh and others used Twitter to post short notes about the proceedings, often in real time. I do wonder whether Twitter is making roundup posts like this superfluous, but will slog ahead anyway...

2. Kendall J of The Crucible, kept a near-daily log of his experiences: OCON – Day 1 & 2, OCON Days 3,4 & 5, OCON Day 6 & 7, and OCON Final Days. Kendall helpfully breaks his posts down into course-related and social sections. From his post on the final days of the conference:

Diana's OBloggers dinner was a success, with such notable bloggers attending as C. August of Titanic Deck Chairs, the husband and wife duo of One Reality and 3 Ring Binder, Gus Van Horn, TOS's Craig Biddle, and new blogger Rational Egoist's Jason Crawford in addition to Paul (GeekPress) and Diana (Noodlefood). We burned the midnight oil back at the hotel discussing all sorts of topics! [minor edits]

I definitely enjoyed that event and would like to thank Diana for organizing it. This was a very fun group of people to spend time with, and it was my first good chance to become better acquainted with the other Boston-area bloggers.

Speaking of whom, ...

3. C. August attended on a somewhat scaled-back basis, but kept good notes: OCON - Day 2, OCON - Days 3 & 4, and OCON - Day 5. This comes from his first entry, about the second day of the conference.

Onkar Ghate spoke on the separation of church and state, its political/philosophical underpinnings, and the threats it faces from the religious right and secular left. It was a fantastic talk.

At the end, Harry Binswanger prodded Onkar to get it published soon, and Onkar responded that he had a book in the making. Harry prodded further and suggested an op-ed so the ideas would be immediately available, which got a big round of applause. I'd actually like to see something in The Objective Standard, with extensive footnotes, because Onkar referred to many works by John Locke and other Enlightenment figures, and it would be a valuable resource.

I definitely agree with that sentiment.

4. Like C. August, I missed seeing the Boston Tea Party, which benefited from a strong presence of ARI speakers and OCON attendees, but Paul Hsieh posted pictures.

5. Returning to the Boston bloggers... Husband and wife duo SB and LB had lots of worthwhile posts on the OCON. SB's diary consisted of the following posts: OCON Update - July 4 through 6, 2009, OCON Update - July 7 through 9, 2009, and OCON Update - July 10 and 11, 2009. From the last of these:

In a general lecture called "Free Minds and Free Markets," Peter Schwartz pointed out the inextricable connection of liberty and capitalism. As Ayn Rand put it, "A free mind and a free market are corollaries." Mr. Schwartz elaborated upon this with his typical brilliance and intensity, and he illustrated his points with many examples, including some execrable quotes from Nicholas Kristof, David Brooks, and Cass Sunstein.

This was one of the two general sessions I attended. The other, also superb, was delivered by John Allison. If I'd ever heard Peter Schwartz speak, it was long-enough ago that I didn't remember just how good a speaker he is.

LB, besides nicely summarizing the social atmosphere of OCON, makes me really wish I'd felt up to attending more of OCON, specifically John Lewis's course:

One of the most immediately motivating things I learned at OCON this week regards the light that lyric poetry of Archaic Greece shines on that important period in the advancement of thought. Dr. John Lewis' presentation of this period was enlightening and inspiring. I will be exploring this period through poetry further, but for now, offer a link to a later bit of interpreted poetry describing the key differences in the archaic poets Homer and Hesiod.

6. I also spent some time catching up with other friends from across the country and over time. Besides being pleasantly surprised to run into a couple of good people I hadn't seen in ten and fifteen years, I walked around the harbor area one afternoon with a friend from Houston. My camera is still MIA, but he had his camera and he's a better photographer than I am anyway. I hope he remembers to send me pictures of the beautiful tall ships that graced the concurrent Sail Boston 2009 event nearby. I may post some of them here later on if he does. [Update: Here are a few.]

7. Commenter JG notes that Yaron Brook's speech to the Boston Tea Party has been posted to YouTube in two parts.

8. Amit Ghate and Edward Cline post the Tea Party speeches of John Lewis and John Ridpath at Thrutch and Capitalism Magazine, respectively.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Added link to Yaron Brook speech as Item 7.
7-31-09: (1) Added Item 8. (2) Added link to tall ship images.