Meta Blog

From David Holcberg: The $3.6 million in "indecency" fines proposed by the FCC against CBS are an ominous attack on the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. Just as the government doesn't fine newspapers that publish cartoons that Muslims deem indecent, it shouldn't fine broadcasters that air shows that viewers deem indecent. Viewers are free to change the channel or turn off their TV set if they do not like what they see. They can't be forced to patronize a station they find indecent. Moreover, it is the parents--not the government--who should be responsible for determining what their children are allowed to watch on TV. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000711.html

Originally posted by Edward Cline from The Rule of Reason, Readers old enough to remember their high school civics classes might recall an earlier expression of "multiculturalism" and "diversity" before these terms were ever coined, that America was a "mosaic" of races and cultures, not a "melting pot" of reason, freedom, and the rule of law. They may recall, with some distaste, their teachers expounding with sanctimony on the subject and their textbooks describing it in preacherly prose. Neither the teachers nor the textbooks, however, offered any guidance or advice about what would happen or what action to take if the elements of that "mosaic" proved to be inimical or hostile to each other and resulted in violent, destiny-defining clashes. Move from the classroom to home and television. Fans of the four series of "Star Trek" will recall the "Prime Directive," a world "Federation" rule that forbade Enterprise crews from "interfering" with primitive alien cultures, no matter how barbaric and irrational they were. With very few exceptions in the episodes, this rule was strictly and conscientiously observed. Also stressed in the series was the notion of "toleration" of alien cultures and practices, no matter how impossibly "inhuman" they were portrayed. Those cultures were to remain "pure" and undisturbed, left alone to "evolve" on their own, if ever. But what was the origin of these ideas? Long before the debut of "Star Trek" in the 1960's, they had filtered down from the modern philosophy taught in our universities to Hollywood, philosophy imported from Europe and tailored for American consumption and promulgation over the course of a century. The relativistic, anti-reason, subjectivist, anti-absolute, reality-denying contents of that philosophy, unopposed by even so much as a fillip of Aristotelian philosophy, helped to indoctrinate not only the writers of those and other television programs, but the culture in general. Then came multiculturalism, "diversity," and "tolerance," all shielded under the mantra of political correctness. President George W. Bush may or may not have been a "Star Trek" fan, but the "Prime Directive" seems to be the foundation of his foreign policy. Islam, in his view, is a religion of peace "hijacked" by extremists and criminals, against whom we are waging (and losing) an unimaginably costly war. Islam, to him, is itself exempt from criticism or judgment. The true nature of the creed eludes him. The thematic similarities between the Koran and, say, Hitler's Mein Kampf, apparently are beyond his grasp. If Iraqis "democratically" vote themselves a theocratic government as repressive as Iran's, the West should not be judgmental, even though it is sacrificing blood and treasure to make it possible. "Tolerance" means adopting a policy of non-judgmentalism, and is the natural partner of the altruistic policy of "sacrifice." We can, however, thank the "Star Trek: The Next Generation" for introducing and concretizing a new nemesis long before its real-life counterpart made itself known. This was the "The Borg," a ravenous, nomadic phenomenon bent on conquest through the destruction of civilizations and the absorption and forcible conversion of their inhabitants into ant-like ciphers with no volition of their own. Its collective by-word and warning was "Resistance is futile." The sole alternative to submission to it was death. Its goal was to erase all traces of individuality and values from men so they could better serve "the hive." Islam (or submission) can be characterized as a real-life "Borg." Islam is a creed that demands unthinking, unreserved submission and obedience to the commands of a ghost, purportedly related by an angel (Gabriel) to a pedophilic barbarian-cum-prophet some fourteen centuries ago, and that encourages the conquest and absorption of secular Western societies under primitive Sharia law. Colonies of Muslims appeared and grew in the midst of those societies, in Europe, Canada, the United States, and other Western countries. They were an alien phenomena that first seemed as anomalously insular as the Amish and Hassidic Jews, but have begun to exhibit a virulence that would not otherwise have been noticed, acknowledged or even tolerated but for the emasculating effects of multiculturalism, diversity, and tolerance. Then-chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Omar Ahmad, told a gathering of California Muslims in July 1998 that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran...should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." If that ever came to pass, what would happen to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Presumably they would suffer the fate of the Alexandrian Library in a Muslim campaign to cleanse men's minds. Islamic spokesmen and activists belligerently demand, first, "toleration" of their irrationalism, and then the cessation of any form of criticism of the creed that could be deemed or defined as blasphemy, offense, or "hate crime." On the premise that Islam cannot be "reformed" into a less hostile, non-aggressive creed without destroying it -- a task that would in fact render it as "benign" as that of the Amish, and no longer "Islam," once its homicidal commandments were expunged from the Koran -- what has been the overall Western response to its demands, which are absolute and non-negotiable? Why is the West retreating from the threat of conquest? Why does resistance to Islam appear to be "futile"? Let us examine some incidents in which Western values, especially freedom of speech, have been challenged and confronted by Islam, and all but abandoned by the West. In Britain, during the height of the Danish Mohammed cartoon uproar, the police covertly photographed demonstrators in London who carried placards that promised or advocated death for the cartoonists and anyone who "insulted" Mohammed. These demonstrators, however, if they are arrested, will not be charged with inciting murder or violence against individuals, but with "hate crimes." Conversely, anyone expressing a position on Islam that Muslims could claim to be offensive, may also be charged with a "hate crime." The notion of "hate" crime subverts the whole idea of criminal responsibility, in addition to making mere thought a crime. On one hand, the concept treats an emotion as a crime and grants it legal, prosecutable legitimacy. Since all emotions are based on conscious or subconscious evaluations, or thought, an emotion can manifest itself in some form of objectionable expression (which could be rational or irrational) in oral or printed form. On the other hand, the notion of "hate" crime grants legal legitimacy to the purported victim's claim of offense, wounded pride, or other emotion-based response to any criticism of the victim's "beliefs," including a sense of jeopardy caused by the "offending" expression. How easy it will be to shift the definition of a "hate crime" from an inflammatory placard or a shouted imprecation during a demonstration to include an article, essay or book! Are Western judiciaries ready to strike down hate crime laws? No. They are rapidly endorsing their introduction into Western legal systems. Most Western newspapers demurred reprinting the Danish cartoons out of "sensitivity" to Muslim religious values (although Muslim-run newspapers and news services feel no such constraint when depicting Jews, President Bush, or Western values). The staffs of several American and European university papers were fired or penalized for printing the cartoons. In Minnesota, a professor of geography at Century College was censored by her school's administration for posting some of the cartoons on the bulletin board of her department, even after she hid them from random sight. Several Mideast editors ran some of the cartoons, not out of sympathy with freedom of speech, doubt about the veracity of Mohammed, or to defy their governments, but simply to show other Muslims what the uproar was about. They were arrested, or dismissed, and their papers closed. One editor in Yemen (a U.S. "ally") faces the death penalty. Europe is reaping the perilous harvest of its decades-long experiment in multiculturalism and tolerance of the irrational, and there is no reason to think that the endemic Muslim violence there will not be emulated in the U.S. Many European countries, especially France, are experiencing a spike in gang rapes of "unveiled" European and "apostate" Mideast women by Muslim men and teens as a form of jihad. European politicians, artists and writers who have spoken out against the dangers of Islamofascism or who have been critical of Islam must have police protection. Many Muslim sections of European cities are "no go" areas to the police. A Turkish Muslim proclaimed in 2003 that Paris, Rome and Madrid were now components of the Islamic world because so many mosques have been erected in those capitals. It can't happen here? American Muslims are not "into" jihadist behavior? Daniel Pipes has on his site logged dozens of instances of "mini-jihadi" in the U.S. committed by resident Muslims, the most recent being the attempted murder on March 3rd of students on the campus of the University of North Carolina by an Iranian immigrant who drove an SUV into a crowded pedestrian zone with the intent of killing as many Americans as he could. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, age 22, was the quintessential "moderate," Western-educated Muslim and model student (majoring in philosophy and psychology) who before his action displayed no overt signs of hostility towards his adopted country. His statements, after his arrest, comprise the kind of anti-American rant one can find on jihadist websites or in al-Quada videotapes. Pipes is understandably perplexed by the event, and writes that Taheri-azar was "not some low-life, not homicidal, not psychotic, but a conscientious student and amiable person." He reaches some wrong conclusions and offers an irrelevant solution. Muslims, he writes, should develop "a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of 'infidels.'" However, the term "radical Islam" is redundant. Remove jihad and the subordination of infidels from Islam, and there is no Islam. The problem is the creed, just as it is with Christians who attack abortion clinics or murder doctors, and with environmentalists who torch car dealerships or attack animal research labs. The idea of "non-interference" ala Star Trek is evidence of multiculturalism's influence in the general culture. It, diversity and "tolerance" combine to close the door to rational discussion and persuasion in every detail. It renders helpless law enforcement to deal with the irrational, barbaric ethics and practices of Islam. Muslims can get away with their irrationality under the protection of multiculturalist "tolerance." Any proposal or move to dilute Islam's "purity" as practiced by Muslims triggers claims of Islamophobia or apostasy or even racism, not only by Muslim spokesmen, but by many Westerners, as well (such as Hollywood). From the Islamic perspective, "tolerance" is a unilateral policy to be benefited only by Muslims, while "multiculturalism" or "diversity" certainly is not on the Islamic agenda of global or even American or European conquest. Only two choices are open to the West: submission to Islam by means of a totalitarian repression of free thought and expression imposed by Western and especially by American authorities; or an assertion of the Western values of reason and individual rights and of their superiority over any species of mysticism, and a declaration of true war against Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. The alternative is to experience the degradation of progressive subservience or "tolerated" dhimmitude in deference to the "Borg."

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason, Slavoj Zizek argues for atheism in the New York Times: The problem with vesting one's hope for humanity in atheism is that atheism only rejects faith in God; beyond declaring what it does not accept, it has nothing else to offer philosophically. That?s unfortunately why so many atheists are moonbats?they may have rejected one form of mysticism, but it does not follow that they have rejected all forms. That?s why I?m not surprised when Zizek says this: Ah, Hume?and a moral code that is still disconnected from the individual?s life. A moral deed is not its own reward?it is recognition of the facts of one?s nature as a living human being and the nature of choices one must make in order to flourish. Every rational moral choice is self-interested?even if given the nature of our times, it doesn?t seem that way to most. Zizek makes one last observation: But I don?t respect Muslims for their beliefs. I respect the Muslims right to hold their beliefs (and harm no one but themselves in the process) but I have nothing but contempt for any code that damns existence on this earth in the name of the supernatural. Life demands rationality, and that is why, in the end, atheism is not substitute for Objectivism.

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason, I have a profile on Orkut, a social networking website run by Google, but I hadn't visited it for ages. Hearing the story at the USA Today on Al-Qaeda using Orkut to recruit English-speaking supporters, I went to Orkut to look up the online communities in question. I was stunned?here were a group of people viciously denouncing the US and reveling in the murder of its people. Clearly, some of the most vicious elements in the world have hijacked this website in order to disseminate their message of jihad against the west. Instapundit?s Glen Reynolds has a new book called An Army of David?s where he argues that the rise of the Internet culture has given voice and influence to a who new group of people who without their blogs and social reworking websites would be ignored by traditional media. Reynolds is dead on and I myself depend on this medium to communicate with those who share my values. The double-edged sword is that the same technology that allows me to link with my supporters can be also exploited to link up those who seek to re-constitute the caliphate. Yet to decry Al-Qaeda?s hijacking the web is ridiculous, akin to decrying its hijacking of airliners on 9/11. Anything Al-Qaeda touches is used for corrupt purposes. The vehicles Al-Qaeda uses were not built in the Arab world, nor the satellite telephones, or the video recorders it uses to film its messages, yet Al-Qaeda has used each in furtherance of its cause. This is an enemy whose material assets are only what he is able to take from us. So the walk away message from this story can?t be that the Internet has become evil, or that we need a regimen of censorship to police the web, because by extension all everyday technology would become suspect. Technology is a tool, and it is as good or as bad the people who use it. Instead, we ought simply focus on the ideology of our enemies and work to crush that. Let?s face it: we keep pussy-footing around the enemy. Had Iran?s mullahs been silenced and the Syrian regime had been smashed, Al-Qaeda would not exist. Had the US allowed Israel to destroy the Palestinian terror machine and those who support it, Al-Qaeda would not exist. Had the UK broken the backs of the imans who use London mosques to recruit terrorists, Al-Qaeda would not exist. And had the West declared that anyone who harms a westerner or western property over some cartoons and a printing press will suffer a certain, painful fate, Al-Qaeda would not exist. It is not the Internet that makes Al-Qaeda possible; it?s the West?s unwillingness to ruthlessly seek out and destroy militant Islam that makes this terror group a continued force. How long Al-Qaeda thumbs its nose as us is not up to it; it?s up to us.

Originally from The Charlotte Capitalist ™, I still can't say bravo enough to Mark Pellin and the entire Rhino Times organization for publishing the controversial Mohammed cartoons. If you haven't found a good enough reason yet to cancel your Charlotte Observer subscription, this issue by itself should be your tipping point. The folks at ARI are all over this subject. Here is the intro to their "Free Speech Campaign". Make sure you go...

Originally posted by Don from NoodleFood, Well, I made it to California, and after settling into my new place, spending too much money on furnishings, and trying to get used to living in a place where all the clocks run three hours too slow, I decided to jump into the California Objectivist world head first. I began by spending my morning at the VanDamme Academy, which of course is run by the delightful Lisa VanDamme. I sat in on the elementary school history lesson and the middle school grammar class. All I can say is that I was absolutely amazed by what Lisa and her staff have accomplished. Her students demonstrated more mastery of their subjects than most college students I've met, and just as important, they showed more enthusiasm for learning than any students I have EVER met. There is no question about it: my kids (once they exist) will attend the VanDamme Academy. After that, whilst still on my cloud, I drove up to UCLA for the free speech event sponsered by the UCLA Objectivist club and the Ayn Rand Institute. It was a round table discussion of the Danish cartoons depicting the "prophet" Mohammed. The round table featured Yaron Brook and three other individuals (Avi Davis and Kevin James, who supported the publishing of the cartoons, and Khaleel Mohammed who...can you guess???...opposed it). Ed Locke moderated. There was a pretty good turnout (at least 100, maybe 200 people), the majority of whom I suspect were Objectivists (based on the applause). There were no disruptions, and thanks to the VERY heavy security presence, no Muslims blew themselves up, which was nice. Yaron did a wonderful job, although I wish he had been able to develop some of the points he made as I think some of them could have come across wrong or unclear. What was most interesting to me was trying to decipher the psycho-epistemologies of the other presenters. Avi Davis sounded like most modern op-ed writers (which makes sense since he is one): no principles, a thorough empiricist, and therefore difficult to follow, and guilty of the evening's worst statement when he suggested that 'perhaps liberal democracies have progressed enough that it's time to start placing limits on some of our freedoms.' (That's a paraphrase, but pretty accurate...he was advocating throwing Holocaust deniers in prison.) Khaleel Mohammed was defending the Muslims. His basic argument was that the West is hypocritical in claiming the cartoons fall under free speech, because we allegedly only allow free speech when it offends Muslims, not Christians or Jews. He said some very awful things and some less awful things, and I would classify him as a rationalist (or, if you've listened to DIM, I'd say he was an M1 coming very very close to an M2). Kevin James was your average conservative radio talk show host. Completely non-intellectual, and more interested in getting laughs than changing minds. In sum, I had a great time at the event. The UCLA Objectivist club (L.O.G.I.C.) was handing out lots of Objectivist literature (including FREE copies of Atlas Shrugged), and I saw at least a few members of the media there, so I'm hopeful this helped Objectivism reach some people. Events like this are always a mixed -- you can't develop your own position as fully but you reach more people. My hope is that at least a few of them at least found the ideas interesting enough to read Atlas Shrugged. If even a few of them are convinced that Objectivism has something important to say, perhaps they will become ARI contributers...and thereby help pay my bills.

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason, Peggy Noonan weighs in on this year's Oscars at the Wall Street Journal: Noonan is half correct. Hollywood is dominated by the left because philosophy is dominated by the left and the arts always follow the philosophy of their time. Nor can it be said that the right offers any real challenge to the left in this regard: fundamentalist Christians don't produce groundbreaking artists in the same way they don't produce groundbreaking scientists. Noonan's observation Hollywood is consumed by status also follows as well: when you are in a room with people who each have their fortunes, the only dividing line left is status. (After all, there's a reason they don't let Rob Schnieder in the Academy). But Noonan is wrong to think that Hollywood does not hate America. Hollywood hates America because it hates reason, it hates individualism, and it hates capitalism. How does Hollywood hate reason? Remember "A Beautiful Mind" about the Nobel-winning mathematician who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia? What did the movie seek to enshrine: a scientist discovering new methods to observe mathematical relationships, or a mentally diseased cripple struggling to survive amidst his visions? Both? OK, how did the scientist save himself? Oh, he didn't: it was love that saved him. So when faced with the challenge of making new discoveries and overcoming mental illness, Hollywood tells us all we need is love. "A Beautiful Mind" won the 2001 Oscar for "Best Picture" How does Hollywood hate individualism? Remember "American Beauty," the movie about the materialistic advertising executive who leads the perfect life in appearances, yet is confronted with existential angst? What did that movie seek to enshrine: egoists who take thoughtful steps to find their own happiness and fulfillment, or depraved freaks who mindlessly worship upon the alter of their every whim? "American Beauty" won the 1999 Oscar for "Best Picture" And how does Hollywood hate capitalism? This time, I note the total absence of any critically acclaimed film that represents a businessman plying his craft and treats him like a hero for doing so Businessmen are routinely cast villains to the point of cliche. Yet it impossible for Hollywood to envision a hero of production worth spotlighting if they hate the social system that makes businessmen possible and the moral basis for such a system. Yes, I know Hollywood is far from consistent; it gives us the occasional "Gladiator" and even Mel Gibson, the director who threw blood on the screen for "The Passion of the Christ" also threw it on the screen for "Braveheart." Yet at root premise, Hollywood does not respect the nation that makes its existence possible; like most intellectuals, it worships a different value over that of western civilization. If this wasn't so, we'd already have a movie that depicts our victory over the jihad. That's why I disagree with Noonan's estimate of Hollywood, and that's why I think the Hollywood problem is a symptom of a far larger illness that afflicts our nation.

Originally from Gus Van Horn, I occasionally visit the website of Houston's left-wing entertainment weekly, the Houston Press, which I have lately found more bearable to read than the once-conservative Chronicle. Today, I had the bizarre experience of seeing what looked, at first glance, to be a pro-nuclear power article in the magazine. Bearing the Kerryesque title, "Bring it on," the article says more than once that nuclear power is the best option for Houston's energy future. But is it really a pro-nuclear power article? Let's look and see. It is notable that the article opens and closes by revisiting the world's worst nuclear disaster, Chernobyl, in great detail. Here are three typical passages. The article never once mentions the fact that the Chernobyl reactor had an inherently unstable design not used in American nuclear power reactors! In fact, the second link explains the science behind nuclear power generation and compares the designs of Chernobyl-style reactors (which are also used to make plutonium for nuclear weapons) to American-style reactors and concludes (in different places): No deaths, if American containment practices were followed.... I have set aside a matter that the interested reader can follow for himself: The runaway nuclear reaction that occurred in Chernobyl would have also been impossible in a plant of the American design. If there was so "little to learn from" Chernobyl, why is the Press presenting that catastrophe as a cautionary tale in a nominally pro-nuclear power article rather than assuring a public -- taught by greens long ago to fear nuclear power -- that nuclear power is safe? To answer this question, we must read the rest of the article. After serving up a heaping helping of Chernobyl hysteria, the article goes on to say that: Yes. If you ignore the fact that Chernobyl wouldn't happen if a plant were built in Houston, the prospect is scary. If not, not. So if you pretend that Chernobyl can happen, you must be getting ready to warn about an even bigger bogeyman hiding under the bed. What else, after all, could justify such a huge "risk"? The article notes, correctly, that high energy prices are causing many who were never too skeptical about it to revisit nuclear power for the first time since our nation witnessed the (not irrelevant) spectacle of "a sweater-clad Jimmy Carter ... cranking down the heat in the White House." These prices especially hurt Houston, whose busy port is made less competitive by recent surges in natural gas prices. The likelihood of Houston getting a new plant soon is aided further by gathering pro-nuclear momentum in Texas as a whole. This momentum was recently aided by a microinitiative in the last State of the Union Address by its former governor, President Bush, who "announced new funding for 'clean, safe nuclear energy.'" [bold added] The Press, normally part of the moonbat chorus chanting "Bush is dumb", had no snide retort to that bit of environmentalist pandering. In fact, it is at this point that the leftist rag decides to go "all in". First, it claims that the environmentalist movement is "softening" on nukes. And then it goes off into what seems like a long digression about an antinuclear activist, Tom "Smitty" Smith, who in 1985 helped the Naderites release a negative report on a plant in Bay City, Texas. It seems that these days, he's crusading against coal power! This paragraph would be equally at home in a polemic against the hypocrisy of environmentalists, and yet here it is, in a pro-nuclear article by a leftist "alternative" newsweekly. What the hell is going on? The demonization of coal power might appear to be the answer from the below passage, but it is not. Yes. Coal is being demonized, but it is not the bogeyman I said the Press would warn us about. It's just one of his minions. The real villain -- which we should fear even more than Chernobyl -- is (drumroll) global warming. The push for nuclear power now suddenly makes some sense. But if you'll recall, America's Greatest Nincom-- President showed us the way to energy independence by leading the charge clad in a sweater and armed with a thermostat at a setting that would make a meat locker feel toasty. If you're waiting for the other shoe to drop, you won't be disappointed, but you must first wait for awhile. The Press has a bogeyman to flesh out first. Of course, with media outlets like the press, Houstonians probably do "need reminding" that there is no evidence that human activity has caused an increase in intense hurricane activity. But if evidence against Chernobyl can be used to paint nuclear power as a desperate measure, why would we even need evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming, obviously an even graver "threat"? And so the Press paints further doomsday scenarios for Houston before printing this passage, which, like the other one about Tom "Smitty" Smith above, contains such a startling admission, it, too could live comfortably in an anti-environmentalist polemic. Aside from saying, "I am a Luddite," or smashing a computer to bits, I don't see how Smith could make his disdain for technology any clearer. Numerous lives are lived at a very high standard thanks to all that energy we're using. But that's taken for granted by Smith, and everyone else who chooses to focus on government action to ban an energy resource over, say, organizing consumers to pressure companies to utilize it more safely. Never underestimate the ardor for sweaters among leftists. Golden Boy Smith likes 'em, and so, too, does the Press. So if conservation is such a good thing, why is the Press in the business of shilling for nuke plants rather than more pasture land, to raise the sheep we'll need for all that sweater wool? It's because of all those evil Republicans and businessmen, that's why! (And here's Blatant Admission Number 3, to boot!) And so, at last, we get to the point: The environmentalists are losing, and so must do what they can. At this point, the logic looks something like, "If we can't ban coal and fossil fuels outright, then let's use nuclear power as a means of making it easier to curtail their use." But is it? There is a mountain of evidence against the leftist belief that every nuclear plant is a Chernobyl waiting to happen. And there no scientific evidence that human activities are causing the increased activity of the last few hurricane seasons. Evidence means nothing to liberals. This would include evidence that their environmentalist cause is unscientific, unfriendly to human life, and unpopular. They do not intend just to roll over or take what they can get. They will end industrial civilization if it's the last thing they do. In other words, that last sentence up there in the bold is not an admission of a reality on the part of the Press, but a tactical maneuver. This is shown much later in the article, after numerous quotations from assorted green "converts" to nuclear power, and a few other facts showing that, while the nuclear option is not great, it's still better than coal. (Even Hillary hasn't figured out how to make uranium materialize out of thin air: It still has to be -- gasp -- mined. Is that last word work-safe?) The evidence lies in the reflexive distrust of anything to do with capitalism shown by Smith. Never mind that the Chernobyl plant was built and operated by a communist regime. And never mind just how freakin' bad for business a nuclear accident of any kind would be for a nuclear power plant. Smith was certainly being sarcastic when he said "wonderful", but I think that is exactly the adjective that many environmentalists would use if they were honest about their half-hearted advocacy of nuclear power, the un-coal. Don't believe me? Consider this passage. Remember. Chernobyl can't happen here. And if you think a little scare-mongering over Chernobyl is cynical, you ain't seen nothin' until the last paragraph. If they really cared about saving human lives and they really equated nuclear power with Chernobyl, they would not line up behind it now. Here is what I think is closer to the motivation behind that last bit: The environmentalists plan to get the last laugh "when" Chernobyl happens. And they will get to feel noble knowing that, at least, when the evil capitalists wouldn't urge the proles to don sweaters, they got behind nuclear power. This way, the "greater" catastrophe, global warming, will have been averted and the human lives lost in the "next Chernobyl" will have been sacrificed on the altar of Gaia. "And then. Then those nasty capitalist pig, consumerist Americans -- the ones who survived -- will be sorry they didn't listen to us!" I can almost hear them screaming, "We told them technology was evil and they didn't listen! Well they wanted Chernobyl and we gave it to them!" This article closes where it began, with Chernobyl, and the Lillian Readen-like wish that it will happen here. Lining up behind nuclear power is, I am sure, just about like planting nuclear bomb next to Houston and hoping it will go off for some of these people. This story is no endorsement of nuclear power, but a series of almost-confessions by environmentalists, and a portrait of the evil psychoepistemology behind the modern Luddites. The good news -- obvious to anyone but an environmentalist -- is that the movement is losing ground in the marketplace of ideas. The bad news is that this movement has no concern for evidence, and will appear to make a compromise only when it sees a tactical advantage in doing so. It unfortunately remains a political force on both the left and the right. Remember, this is the same movement that crippled our nuclear power industry in the first place. It is really merely turning its attention on the parts of our energy sector that remain -- relatively -- untouched. And while it does this in the name of global warming, the bogeyman it is using to scare us with, I submit that the real bogeyman is mankind, the beneficiary of all the technology the greens have been crusading against for decades. -- CAV PS: For a quick summary, and a more humorous perspective.... The greens support nuclear power for exactly the opposite reason they should. Falsely equating nuclear power plants with Chernobyl, they see them as potentially very dangerous to mere human beings, but since saving "the world" is their priority over man, another such disaster is no big deal to them. Thinking they'll be vindicated in the end, then, they play right into the hands of capitalism on that issue. Unfortunately, their sudden love for nuclear power masks their real objective: to do to the coal and gas industries what they did to the nuclear power industry long ago.

[spoiler warning] Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason So Crash, one of the most philosophically objectionable movies that I've seen in a long time, won yesterday's coveted Academy Award for "Best Picture." Crash has two major themes: everyone is a racist, doesn't know it, and no one is a hero, even if they perform heroic acts. For example, when the Ryan Phillpe policeman character (after redeeming his earlier moral failure to act) kills the gang-banging hijacker-who was pulling out a religious trinket instead of a handgun: that was vicious depiction. When the Don Cheadle defective character is to blame for his brothers death by his strung out mother-that was vicious setup too. Every part of Crash--every one of its intricate plot threads-was dedicated to portraying that mankind barely survives in the face of his omnipresent flawed perceptions. Yet if life were really like that, day in, day out, no matter what one does or how hard they strive to be just, we'd be paralyzed and forever rioting in the streets. So what if Crash was stylishly filmed and well acted. All of it was in order to communicate an utterly corrupt Marxist view of how people think. The Marxist theory of racial conflict is that the races are utterly subjugated by the dominant race's power and there's nothing anyone can do about it save for blow things up. Why? Because we are all blinded by of our racial compositions-none of us can never hope to see beyond our myriad of prejudices. So much for the rational faculty as man's only tool for survival. From all this you get spectacles like when the cast made a guest appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show and members of the audience asked a Black studies professor if they were racists. If you have to ask someone if your everyday contempt for people of a different race actually makes you a racist, you have just achieved a new low in mental acuity. The fact is we do have a free choice when dealing with others. We can either choose to judge people by relevant criteria, or by irrelevant criteria. We can either find a common bond with others, or reject any commonality that exists. This is a conscious choice. It may get automatized over time, but somewhere, each of us makes a deliberate choice that will shape our destiny: we either choose to think, or not to think. Yet in Crash, we are all just victims of unconscious fate--a product of a racial composition we have no control over and utterly paralyzed by the fact we have judge and act. Wicked. Where Jarhead sought merely to smear the United States Marine Corps, Crash seeks to smear all of the the United States.

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason, The following bill, introduced by state representative David Sater is being considered by the Missouri House of Representatives What is the point of such a resolution? It offers no proof that there is a God. It's claim that God's law somehow led to the Declaration of Independence and the federal Constitution after a millennium of religious tyranny is absurd. There is no threat to voluntary prayer anywhere. The resolution binds no one to anything--this bill is utterly without justification or merit. Instead, what this bill evidences is the conservatives' continuing lust for democracy and majority values over the principle of individual rights. Wouldn't the really brave resolution be the one that affirms the individual's right to his own life, judgment and property irrespective of what the majority thinks? I think so--but you'll never see such a bill introduced by the conservatives.

Originally from Gus Van Horn, Demonstrating yet again the intellectual bankruptcy of the "revolt now, think later (if at all)" basic premise of Libertarianism, a faction of Libertarians recently attempted to borrow a page from the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh's playbook and take over a small rural town, this time in West Texas. Like Antelope, Oregon, which had a similar population before the Rajneeshes took it over by immigrating en masse into a nearby ranch in the early 1980's, Loving County, and its only town (and county seat), Mentone, are barely populated. Unlike Loving County, however, one need not move a bunch of fruitcakes in all at once as the Rajneeshees did in Oregon (or the Libertarians hope to do in New Hampshire) to win an election. The fruitcakes need only swear that they intend to live there. Someone was bound to try to game this system sooner or later. So why not someone who wants to repeal all manner of laws in the name of "liberty" while, presumably, not repealing the voting law that made taking over the town from afar possible in the first place? Note the typical Libertarian wish list at the end that completely fails to mention individual rights. And note further that the list of objectives, not integrated by this principle, is a laundry list of (1) some items that happen to resemble what would exist in a society that consistently respected individual rights (e.g., no zoning laws), and (2) some items that are entirely contradictory to the concept of individual rights. As an example of the latter, legalized dueling would amount to legalized murder, a blatant violation of the principle of individual rights. And note further that both this project and the so-called "Free State Project" for New Hampshire illustrate by their method the Libertarian contempt for the intellectual dimension of establishing and maintaining a free society. Each project represents a proposal to establish "freedom" (e.g., legalized murder in the form of dueling) via the ballot box without any attempt to win the battle of ideas. Or, more explicitly, each is an attempt by a mob -- whose members cannot even agree on what constitutes freedom -- to impose "freedom" at the ballot box of a small polity. The need for the general populace of a free society to understand what freedom means before such a society will have a government that protects their rights thus becomes glaringly obvious when we examine the latest antics of these Libertarians. First, even if the Libertarians did succeed with one of these schemes, some of their proposals show that they would fail to establish, even for an instant, a government that protects individual rights. They will not gain liberty this way because they do not know what it is. And second, by choosing the overstuffed ballot box over the drawing room, the Libertarians have failed here to advance a single argument to sway anyone who disagrees with them to support individual rights. Remembering the maxim, "A republic, if you can keep it," we thus see that the Libertarian approach would be incapable of keeping freedom, even if they could win it in the first place. That is because, even if the Libertarians did know what "freedom" means, one else would learn that from them. What? A Libertarian society that fails to respect individual rights? In the words of a Libertarian of my past acquaintance, "This is not about individual rights." Uh-huh.

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason Welcome! I'm Nicholas Provenzo, founder and chairman of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism, and I'd like to welcome you to the inaugural edition of the Carnival of the Objectivists. For those unfamiliar with Objectivism, it is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and an uncompromising advocate for reason, egoism, and capitalism. Today's mission is to highlight just a few of the many Objectivist blogs on the Internet, so without further adieu, let me introduce . . . ::Noodlefood Noodlefood is a group blog primarily written by Objectivist graduate student Diana Hsieh and includes posts from her husband Paul Hsieh as well as Don Watkins. This has been a bellwether week for Noodlefood, which is helping Denver-based Front Range Objectivism host this weekend's Conference on Law, Individual Rights and the Judicial System. The conference received an excellent op-ed mention by Ari Armstrong in the Boulder Weekly. Other posts of interest include the flood of replies to Diana Hsieh's post asking her readers what originally "hooked" them into studying Objectivism. Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Diana Hsieh holds a coveted position on Instapundit's blogroll, which means either her blog is just that good, or she's got dirt on Glenn Reynolds nasty habits. Heh--Indeed! ::Gus Van Horn Gus Van Horn is the nom de plume of a scientist residing in Houston, Texas and author of a popular pro-reason, pro-individual rights political and cultural blog. This week, Van Horn dipped his toes into editorial waters, writing the following op-ed on the contrast between the American response to the Kelo decision and the Islamic response to the Mohammad cartoons. Van Horn's key observation: A man's home is his castle, but only if he is a free man. Yet if we here in America are afraid simply to print some innocuous cartoons, our home is no longer our castle. It has become our prison, and the Moslems have become our jailers. The fight to protect our home was not won after Kelo. It really only began in earnest with the cartoon riots and the threat to freedom of speech they represent. Our press has been deterred from its duty to report the news -- by printing the cartoons the rioters used as an excuse for murder -- by that very same violence. The threat to our home, America, may be more abstract this time around, but it is no less immediate or important. The time to defend it -- by demanding that our politicians stand up for freedom of speech -- is now. I'm pleased to report that Van Horn allowed CAC to add his article our op-ed collection and I hope this collaboration continues to bear fruit. ::The Objective Standard The Objective Standard is Craig Biddle's new journal. Biddle sent me an advance copy and he clearly has set a new high-watermark for Objectivist commentary and critical review. Biddle defines the Standard as follows: It is widely believed today that our cultural and political alternatives are limited either to the ideas of the secular, relativistic left --or to those of the religious, absolutist right --or to some compromised mixture of the two. In other words, one?s ideas are supposedly either extremely liberal or extremely conservative or somewhere in-between. We at The Objective Standard reject this false alternative and embrace an entirely different view of the world. Our view is fully secular and absolutist; it is neither liberal nor conservative nor anywhere in-between. Our philosophy uncompromisingly recognizes and upholds the natural (this-worldly), factual, moral foundations of a fully free, civilized society. Culturally, we advocate scientific advancement, productive achievement, objective (as opposed to "progressive" or faith-based) education, romantic art?and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason. Politically, we advocate pure, laissez-faire capitalism -- the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government --along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends. In a word, we advocate Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and apply its principles to the cultural and political issues of the day. Ayn Rand described Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth." The reason why it is a philosophy for living on earth is that its every principle is derived from the observable facts of reality and the demonstrable requirements of human life and happiness. Needless to say, The Objective Standard is going to be an important tool in the advance of Ayn Rand's ideas. ::Cox and Forkum No Carnival of Objectivists would ever be complete without noting the stupendous achievements of Cox and Forkum, the hands-down most intelligent, most original editorial cartoonists in America today. Here's their latest: These men are incredible and I wish them continued success. ::Literatrix Literatrix is the personal blog of Jennifer Snow, who posts include book reviews such as her recent examination of the works of Thomas Paine. According to Snow: My initial impression is that this man was the absolute nuclear generator of quotes; even more so than Ayn Rand, and she is eminently quotable. The reason that both were very quotable is, in my mind, that both spent their time turning a vast complexity of information into simple, memorable principles. They are different, though, in that when you quote Ayn Rand, you have to remember that you are summoning up a vast context for your quote and be careful not to oversimplify the case. Thomas Paine's quotes generally require little or no context, and he frequently manages to oversimplify the case without the interference of any outside agency. ::Alexander Marriott's Wit and Wisdom Alexander Marriott is another graduate student blogger and occasional editorialist. Most recently, he is laughing at a Democrat blog promoting a children's book called "Why Mommy is a Democrat." According to Marriott: This book shows the utter bankruptcy of Democrats in terms of ideas, their conception of keeping people safe it protect them from elephant monsters (Republicans), their conception of economic policy equates to kids sharing their toys (as if this in any way relates to the hard earned fortunes of individuals in the economy at large, not to mention you typically don't pull a gun on a kid to get him to share his "toys"). Marriott goes on to observe that both parties are short of serious ideas, and "Why Mommy is a Democrat" is simply the latest illustration of the general trend. ::The Dougout The Dougout is a history, politics and current events blog run by Grant Jones and named in honor of General Douglas MacArthur. Jones gets the hat tip for his initial reporting of the University of Washington "Pappy" Boyington outrage that inspired me to write an open letter to the university and get 120 of my Marine buddies to sign along with me. Jones most recently chronicles the Battle of the Bismarck Sea and remarks on Inside Higher Education's review of David Horowitz's 101 Most Dangerous Professors. ::Armchair Intellectual Armchair Intellectual is the personal blog of Gideon Reich, an old college friend of mine from my George Washington University days. At his blog, Reich reports on some good news for Objectivists: The first item is Robert Tracinski's article The Lessons of the Cartoon Jihad is featured at the top of the Friday, March 3 edition of RealClearPolitics.com. This is an excellent article which criticizes both right and left for their inadequate response to this controversy. The second item is a hopeful sign that another important book by a prominent Objectivist may be published by a distinguished publisher. One of my daily pastimes is to check the resume of John Lewis, Assistant Professor of History at Ashland University. I check the resume because he has a section in which he notes the publication status of the books he has written. Specifically, I was very interested in seeing his Nothing Less than Victory published as it includes the details of his argument against the inadequacy of the present war effort with some comparison to a number of historical wars. Over the last few months the listing on the website has mostly been "in progress", which I surmise means that no publisher is looking at it. There was a brief time a while ago when it was listed as "under press review" -- presumably that means that some unidentified publisher was reviewing the book. However, after a week or so of this status, the page was updated back to "in progress." Now however the listing has not only returned to "under press review" but has in fact been updated as follows: "under review, Princeton University Press." This is certainly a very positive and hopeful sign. I agree. I've seen a draft copy of Lewis' book and he makes many vital arguments. Reich also recently contributed book reviews of The Capitalist Manifesto by Andrew Bernstein and The Abolition of Antitrust by Gary Hull for CAC's Capitalist's Book Club. Eat that for dinner, Oprah. ::The Charlotte Capitalist Andy Clarkson is the Charlotte Capitalist, and he's posted about my work so many times it's high time I paid him back the favor. Clarkson covers North Carolina and national politics and his most recent posting of note is a parody of the Charlotte Mecklenburg government?s management of the public schools. For decades the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County have run the nutritional system. While a few private grocery stores and restaurants exist, 96% of Charlotte citizens? food is supplied through a number of Charlotte Mecklenburg Food Board distribution centers. Traditionally, most of the distribution centers have been located close to uptown. As CharMeck growth has exploded, pressure on the food system has created shortages and conflicts. The suburbs are demanding more food distribution centers and better nutrition. The inner city is demanding renovation of aging centers. The food board says there is nothing it can do without more local, state, and national funding. Without that funding, it will need to sell food bonds for the renovation and building of food distribution centers. Meanwhile, Charlotte national and state nutritional rankings are far below where they should be. People, particularly the children, are not getting the nutrition they should be getting. The food board points to occasionally spotty areas of improvement, while critics point out longer-term problems. In order to get to the root of the problem, The Charlotte Capitalist sponsored a workshop to drive discussion of the CharMeck nutritional system. It invited both politicians and pundits. While no ideas or action items, or for that matter anything worthwhile was created, there was a lot of revealing discussion. As Andy says, here are some, ugh, highlights from the workshop. ::Ego Ego is American-in-spirit Martin Lindeskog's blog. Always plently of good material and lots of cross-posting; in fact, you should just head on over and have a look-see for yourself. ::Daily Dose of Reason Daily Dose of Reason is Dr. Michael Hurd's blog in support of his private psychotherapy and life coaching practice. Dr. Hurd has the uncanny ability to be published in USA Today, in fact, they have ran his essays more times than I can count, which is quite a remarkable achievement. His most recent "Daily Dose" is on the continued fallout from Hurricane Katrina: People continue to blame President Bush for the Katrina disaster; but how come nobody blames government itself? The abysmal federal response to the hurricane relief effort was a great opportunity for advocates of limited government (including Republican conservatives, you would think) to point out how government can never do the job that private groups and individuals can. Instead, the media has fixated on Bush and, in the absence of any comments to the contrary, the impression becomes embedded in most Americans' minds that it's all Bush's fault. This is dangerous, because people are now left with the assumption that if only we get the "right" government leader -- not Bush, but somebody else -- then the government will be able to do what no government has ever done or will do: rebuild people's lives after a disaster. Victims of the next natural disaster shouldn't view the Katrina debacle as proof that Bush is bad; they should view it as proof that government is by its nature incompetent, particularly when expected to do what it cannot and should not do. Exactly. ::Mike?s Eyes Mike is well, Mike, a retired supervisor from the Detroit, Michigan area. He echos Robert W. Tracinski's displeasure with the recent anti-American Turkish movie "Valley of the Wolves" and George Clooney's "Syriana." Do these actors have the right to smear America? Absolutely. Do they have the right to do it with impunity? Absolutely not. Just as they have a right to condemn America, Americans have the right to condemn them. So, I hereby declare I will not spend a cent to see any movie which casts sirs Zane, Busey or Clooney. I saw "Syriana" and let us just say that's two hours I'll never get back . . . ::Oak Tree This blog is by an undergraduate student who often comments on the inanity of some of his classes. Here's his latest: Summary of today's Business Ethics class: Won't someone please [pretend to] think about the children? Here's what I learned: 1. Boycotting child labor may hurt the kids even more, but I'm willing to pay the price to feel morally righteous. Here's how the actual dialog went between me and prof: Me: I'm assuming that the poor families are having their children work because they need the money. So abstaining from buying child-labor carpets is essentially a kiss of death for those families. Prof: It's true that if children lose these jobs, they will either have to resort to prostitution or starvation. But isn't this still a rationalization to keep child labor alive? 2. Economic development is an important solution to child labor, but let?s ignore that for now and think about these feel-good solutions. Again, me and prof: Me: I agree that child labor is terrible, but it won't end until these families become wealthier. So I think the only solution is capitalism and economic development. Prof: I think we can all agree that economic development is ultimately needed, but right now I want you all to choose one of these five. [points to the slide with five possible solutions, all of them suggesting either abstain from buying child-labor products, donating to charity, or a combination of the two] 3. Alright, if you're going to insist on economic development, can't we at least do it altruistically? I was confused by this at the time, but now I realize he was actually trying to come up with an altruistic way to bring about economic development: Prof: Wouldn't a country like Nepal achieve "economic development" by using its lack of child labor as a selling point? Me: I don't see why. Again, I don't think the solution is to boycott child labor. Ideally, companies will employ poor children and as the economy grows they will be employed less and less. is the only ethical person in his Business Ethics class. I recall the feeling. ::Quent Cordair Fine Art Quent Cordair has Dianne Durante looking at film as an art form in anticipation of Sunday's Oscars: Evaluating a film esthetically means looking at the "how" of the movie. Do all its elements work together to convey the theme? There may be subplots, plot twists, flashbacks and dream sequences, but once you've watched the end of the film, you should be able to analyze how every gesture, every line of dialogue, every costume and every camera angle contributed to the theme. To put it negatively, nothing should be inexplicable or pointless, and nothing should be confusing unless (as in many mysteries or thrillers) confusion is necessary at a certain point in the plot development. Read the whole article here. ::Lee Sandstead Lee Sandstead is simply one of the most brilliant art historians and photographers I know. Sandstead's website is the photo journal of his adventures in art history as he travels far and wide to capture the most beautiful and inspiring art, wherever it may be. My fiance recently purchased one of his fine art prints he has available at his commercial website (Monument Light) and we both wholeheartedly recommend Sanstead's photography to anyone who wants to bring beauty into their lives. This week, Sanstead highlights this lost gem -- lost, that is, to the world of art history, which instead worships in the cult of the ugly. According to Sanstead: There are so many books that need to be written about nineteenth-century art -- thousands actually. While there have been many books documenting the influence of Spanish artists on the French modernists, a more interesting book would concern the Spanish artists that trained, worked and excelled in Academic Paris. This particular artist, Raimundo de Madrazo Y Garreta would be the subject of one such book. (Or maybe several such books.) Today, little is known about him. For instance, this gorgeous portrait has neither title, date, nor detailed provenance. But the painting is gorgeous. The sitter, whoever she may be, has the look of intelligence, bearing, and surely commands the attention of whoever looks at her. I admit, I feel passionately about Sanstead?s work because he is so inspiring and passionate himself. What else can I say? Visit his website today. ::The Secular Foxhole Blair (not sure if he wants his last name public) is using Ayn Rand to get chatty with babes at the bookstore: I've just returned from the bookstore, where I had a pleasant conversation with a fine looking young woman who, as it happened, was looking in the philosophy section at Rand's books :-) I couldn't let this opportunity slip by so I said, "excuse me, are you interested in Ayn Rand's ideas?" She said a friend had recommended her works to her and what would I recommend to her (!). I said she should read 'The Fountainhead' but then asked if she preferred fiction or non-fiction. She said non-fiction, and had 'Return of The Primitive' and 'Philosophy: Who Needs It?' already in hand, which I praised highly and also recommended to her 'The Virtue of Selfishness,' "which explains her theory of ethics". We then sauntered over to the Literature section, where I pulled out FH for her. We continued our conversation about Rand and FH in particular briefly. I left before she did, but she had all four books in hand when we parted company. I love it! ::Thruch Thruch is Amit Ghate's blog. Ghate is enjoying a surge in traffic from this article on the cartoon jihad. To stand together means to assert our rights with our government as our agent. To those who threaten us with force, asserting our rights means responding with force, in fact, with overwhelming force. We must say to Iran (which on February 14 just reconfirmed the Rushdie fatwa) "oust and turn over the regime which sees fit to condemn a single citizen of ours to death, or face all out war." And if they refuse, give them the war they started, but be sure to win it decisively, not protecting their mosques and infrastructure, but instead doing everything necessary to ensure they have no capacity to ever threaten us again. To Pakistan and India, which host clerics bold enough to put bounties on the heads of our citizens, demand that they turn over the men and their supporters, and if they refuse, go in and take them by force. For if we fail to reverse our pattern, men will continue to learn that their rights are a sham, that the government's promise to protect the individual is a hoax, and that only by refraining from thinking and speaking out might they be momentarily safe. Men will then go on to realize that they must seek out true protectors, in the form of some gang; ethnic, religious or otherwise; who may afford them a measure of security, albeit at the cost of complete obedience. Eventually the gangs will fight it out in an effort to wrest absolute power and to subjugate the others. So will end the great intellectual and political achievement of the West, which began 2,500 years ago in Greece with its discovery and reverence for the individual, and which culminated in the enunciation of the guiding principles of the United States. The end will not come because an over-powering enemy has arisen -- no, to our everlasting shame, the end will come because Western governments, in a display of incredible cowardice and treason, have abandoned and delivered their disarmed individual citizens to a mob of stone-age savages. Well said. ::Witch Doctor Repellent Witch Doctor Repellent is Andrew Dalton's cultural commentary blog. He's not sheeding a tear over the recent passing of perennial Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne: Harry Browne, former presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, has died today. Color me unsad. Why? This is why. Notice that he was pushing this tripe on September 12, 2001?the day after the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Mr. Browne's brand of triumphalist defeatism might seem unremarkable by the standards of today's "anti-war" Left, but he did have the remarkable dishonor of being first. Take that, Michael Moore! Does anyone needed a clearer concretization of why Objectivism is not "libertarian"? In a word, No. ::Truth, Justice, and the American Way TJAY is David Veksler's blog of assorted commentary. Most resently, he writes that the U.A.E ports controversy is overblown: The U.A.E has some significant freedoms compared to the U.S., especially in some areas that I find personally important. Whether economic or political freedom is more important to you personally is not the issue. The issue is that the UAE has an economy that is mostly free, and further trade with the West will encourage the growth of productive values instead of the destructive values prevalent in the Arab world. Isolating a progressive country like the U.A.E will be a racist statement that will discourage the rest of the Islamic world from economic liberalization, and instead encourage their anti-Western sentiment?and in this case, with good reason. This is not about the safety of our ports, as [Harry] Binswanger explained, or the totally irrelevant fact that the UAE is not a democracy. The issue is whether we will recognize the virtue of a society that has chosen civilization, or engage in collectivist thinking and refuse to distinguish a potential ally from our enemies. * * * So there we have it, the inaugural edition of the Carnival of the Objectivists. The thing is, I only touched the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Objectivists standing up for their values. So until next time . . . Good Premises!

Originally from Gus Van Horn, This is a draft of a column I wrote last week and revised with the help of my wife, Nick Provenzo, and another who wishes to remain anonymous. I am grateful for their time and consideration. *** Suppose I knew that one man was a magistrate and another was a terrorist, but I had to pick out the terrorist on sight. If I chose the man in the powdered wig over the man in the kefiyah, you would think me daft. And yet our news media have been making a mistake of the same order in their coverage of two very different stories over the past few months. In doing so, they have completely missed an important relationship between the stories that affects us all. The two stories are the reaction of the American people to a hugely unpopular Supreme Court decision, and the reaction of Moslems across the world to a hugely unpopular set of cartoons portraying their prophet, Mohammed. Our media often frame the stories as if we have people from two very different cultures fighting for their rights -- but do we? Let's look at the facts. Last June, in the case Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a local government that wanted to expand the power of eminent domain in order to force residents to sell their homes to make way for a real estate development. Kelo instantly sparked outrage among Americans everywhere. They immediately understood that their very homes were in danger and quickly made their displeasure known by exercising their freedom of speech through letters to the editor, calls to public officials, and lawsuits, for example. And our elected representatives got the message. The New York Times recently reported that bills limiting the power of eminent domain were pending in nearly every state legislature. The people's outrage had, in fact sparked what the paper called "a rare display of unanimity that cuts across partisan and geographic lines". Even legislators who'd never met a tax they didn't like became staunch defenders of property rights almost overnight. In America, a people wanting only to be able to enjoy their homes recognized a threat to that right, took it seriously, and acted to preserve what was theirs. They acted in a civilized manner, consistent with their respect for individual rights. Now let's look at the reaction across the Moslem world to the publication, in Denmark last September, of some cartoons portraying the prophet Mohammed. Although the editors of the newspaper Jyllands Posten knew that Islam forbids images of its prophet, they decided to do so as a protest against self-censorship by Danish cartoonists, after the author of a children's book about Mohammed was unable to find an illustrator. Moslem reaction has been swift, prolonged, and deadly. Within weeks, eleven ambassadors from Moslem states asked Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to "take all those responsible to task under law", and threatened, "reactions in Muslim countries and among Muslim communities in Europe." Rasmussen, to his great credit, stood up for the freedom of speech of his countrymen. Since then, violent protests have taken place in ten countries, resulting in attacks on five embassies, thirty-four deaths, and hundreds of injuries over a span of three weeks. Many Western media outlets have refused to show the cartoons, citing concerns that they are offensive. But an editorial in the Boston Phoenix explained its refusal by saying, "we are being terrorized, and...could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year-publishing history." This is a newspaper in America, a nation organized upon the principle of freedom of speech. For those who might somehow still feel conflicted about whether Moslems have a "right" to not be offended that somehow supercedes our right to criticize Islam, it might be instructive to remember some of Thomas Jefferson's words on the matter of speech offensive to religion. "t does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Contrary to the claims of the Moslem rioters, there is no "right" not to be offended. There is no "right" to forbid someone to say something. There is no "right" to murder someone or threaten to do so over something he has said. Yet what has happened in the Moslem world has been condemnation, violence, and bloodshed over an issue that pales in comparison to the self-inflicted degradation and barbarity that take place daily in the Islamic world. It is crucial for America's security that we acknowledge that the perpetrators of this murder and mayhem have every intention of continuing to export it and its underlying philosophy to the world -- and within our own borders. Throughout the Moslem world, hoards of meddlesome savages saw a cartoon as an excuse to threaten the lives and well-being of anyone anywhere in the world with the temerity to "offend" them -- whatever might happen to "offend" them on a given day. Their barbarous acts stemmed directly from the fact that they have no concern for individual rights -- only what they say Allah wills. So when comparing the American response to the Kelo decision to the Moslem response to editorial cartoons, nothing could be further from the truth than to say that both stories are about people fighting for their rights. The Kelo story shows Americans protecting their property rights through the exercise of their right to freedom of speech, while the cartoon story shows Moslems butting into our affairs over something that neither picks their pockets nor breaks their legs. In fact, Moslems are doing far worse -- committing murder -- over a few line drawings. Theirs is not a fight for their rights, but a jihad against ours. A man's home is his castle, but only if he is a free man. Yet if we here in America are afraid simply to print some innocuous cartoons, our home is no longer our castle. It has become our prison, and the Moslems have become our jailers. The fight to protect our home was not won after Kelo. It really only began in earnest with the cartoon riots and the threat to freedom of speech they represent. Our press has been deterred from its duty to report the news -- by printing the cartoons the rioters used as an excuse for murder -- by that very same violence. The threat to our home, America, may be more abstract this time around, but it is no less immediate or important. The time to defend it -- by demanding that our politicians stand up for freedom of speech -- is now. Will we take the Moslem jihad against our rights as seriously as we took the government's threat against our homes? The Moslems are no less serious than government bureaucrats, and they want to take much more from us than just the roofs over our heads. Our government wanted only our homes. The Islamists want our freedom. -- CAV

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason Tomorrow is prep day for the first Carnival of the Objectivists -- a carnival where reality is held as an absolute, reason is our only guide, man is treated as an end in himself and happiness (and increased website traffic) is our noblest goal. So . . . if you want your Objectivist blog to be highlighted at the Carnival let me know no later than 9PM Eastern Standard Time tomorrow, March 3rd. Update: Lost, confused, don't have a clue: click here and read.

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason, Got this today from Craig Biddle at The Objective Standard--mark your calendar:

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason, Harry V. Jaffa, a distinguished fellow at the Claremont Institute and professor emeritus of government at Claremont McKenna College and the Claremont Graduate School says Americans are not properly justifying their arguments for freedom in today's Wall Street Journal. As God's creatures, we owe unconditional obedience to His will. By that very fact however we do not owe such obedience to anyone else. Legitimate political authority--the right of one human being to require obedience of another human being--arises only from consent. The fundamental act of consent is, as the 1780 Massachusetts Bill of Rights states, "a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good." The "certain laws for the common good" have no other purpose but to preserve and protect the rights that each citizen possesses prior to government, rights with which he or she has been "endowed by their Creator." The rights that governments exist to secure are not the gift of government. They originate in God. So the rights of man are an article of faith. It gets better. Our difficulty in pursuing a rational foreign policy in the Middle East--or anywhere else--is compounded by the fact that we ourselves, as a nation, seem to be as confused as the Iraqis concerning the possibility of non-tyrannical majority rule. We continue to enjoy the practical benefits of political institutions founded upon the convictions of our Founding Fathers and Lincoln, but there is little belief in God-given natural rights, which are antecedent to government, and which define and limit the purpose of government. Virtually no one prominent today, in the academy, in law, or in government, subscribes to such beliefs. Indeed, the climate of opinion of our intellectual elites is one of violent hostility to any notion of a rational foundation for political morality. We, in short, engaged in telling others to accept the forms of our own political institutions, without reference to the principles or convictions that give rise to those institutions. According to many of our political and intellectual elites, both liberal and conservative, the minority in a democracy enjoys only such rights as the majority chooses to bestow upon them. The Bill of Rights in the American Constitution--and similar bills in state constitutions--are regarded as gifts from the majority to the minority. But the American Constitution, and the state constitutions subordinate to it have, at one time or another, sanctioned both slavery and Jim Crow, by which the bills of rights applied to white Americans were denied to black Americans. But according to the elites, it is not undemocratic for the minority to lose. From this perspective, both slavery and Jim Crow were exercises of democratic majority rule. This is precisely the view of democracy by the Sunnis in Iraq, and is the reason they are fighting the United States. Unless we as a political community can by reasoned discourse re-establish in our own minds the authority of the constitutionalism of the Founding Fathers and of Lincoln, of government devoted to securing the God-given equal rights of every individual human being, we will remain ill equipped to bring the fruits of freedom to others. So according Mr. Harry V. Jaffa, the alternative to the tyranny of the majority is some good old-fashioned religion. What is astonishing about Jaffa's thesis is his utter unwillingness to come to grips with intellectual history. Why, if faith in God is the fount of all individual liberty, did it take mankind almost 1,800 years to get from the Sermon on the Mount to the Declaration of Independence? Why the Dark Ages? Why the repression of scientists such as Galileo? Why the Inquisition? Why the wars of religion? And why the First Amendment, which protects the individual's right not to have a religion, if all freedom springs from faith in God? And why should our freedom (or anything else, for that matter) be accepted simply as an article of faith, with no grounding in any sort of understanding of the nature of man as a living organism with a free mind and a being that must take self-sustaining action to in order to survive and prosper? Is Mr. Jaffa, citizen of the freest nation in the history of mankind and beneficiary of the fruits of industrialization and unshackled enterprise, unable to find any rational justification for freedom in our nation's history? It seems so. And in the process, Mr. Jaffa is conceding the debate to the ilk that says that individual rights are nothing but "nonsense on stilts." Speak for yourselves, brothers. I find the case for my rights in human nature. Two massively wicked articles out of the Wall Street Journal in as many weeks. This is an increasingly bad trend . . .

Originally from The Charlotte Capitalist ™, The New York teachers union is in a tizzy over Governor Pataki's tax credits for education plan. Parents, educators and taxpayers from a wide spectrum of groups are telling lawmakers to reject voucher schemes as a misplaced priority. Pataki's plan is for only $500 per student. He should have gone for $10,000 or whatever the average cost of a student is. The howling would have been the ...

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason, I just read this excellent letter to the editor in the Bismarck Tribune from Adam Twardowski to an op-ed that claimed that one needs money first before one can overcome poverty. Please note, according to the paper, Twardowski is a middle school student. Wow--that's an fine letter--a taut defense of the productive mind. Bravo Adam!

Originally posted by Edward Cline from The Rule of Reason, "The irony of fate," states one literary reference work, means "a strange fatality which has brought about something quite the reverse of what might have been expected." Or might have been intended. Irony in politics is uniquely and intimately linked to the law of unintended consequences. The term irony itself is rooted in the Greek eiron, or "a dissembler," or liar. Altruism, or the moral code of sacrifice and living for others, has produced a larger number of ironies or unintended consequences than any other species of good intention. Its ironies cannot be fathomed except by reason coupled with a questioning of its morality. They become evident only after honest and extended questioning of altruism's practicality. The irony of altruist policies leaves some of their practitioners and observers baffled and ultimately discouraged. Others learn nothing from the failure of altruism; they just try harder to make it work. Let us cite a few of the most recent and notable ironies. The democratic election by Palestinians of HAMAS, a terrorist gang dedicated to the violent destruction of Israel, is an irony of the first rank. The election results received the blessing of our own Pope of Humility and Sacrifice, ex-president Jimmy Carter. However, even if it could be proved that the election was rigged in HAMAS's favor, it would not make a difference. American and European observers had hoped, in fact, had intended, that one of two things would emerge from those elections: a mellowed HAMAS that yearned for "peace" and was committed to negotiating with Israel; or, a slate of "moderate" Palestinians who wouldn't be as terrifying as the Koran-sanctioned, ski-masked gunmen behind them. After all, if they wear three-piece suits and pass a frisk for weapons before entering negotiations, then they must be civilized and open to a peacekeeping deal. Or so our pragmatic policymakers believe. The White House has sworn never to deal with HAMAS, but pledged to continue "humanitarian" aid to the Palestinian government for schools, medical services, and food, even though little of it in the past has ever been used for those purposes. Our State Department and intelligence services know this. But altruism trumps reality and truth every time. HAMAS is synonymous with homicide. "Democracy" was supposed to work like alchemy and render the homicidal benign. HAMAS burst that illusion immediately upon being elected to power. Competing for first rank in terms of bringing democracy to tribalist barbarians is the election of a nascent theocracy in Iraq itself. President Bush intended that Iraqis discover the blessings of liberty, and thousands of Americans have paid the price for his good intentions. The horrible truth is that he has accepted the verdict that it is a theocracy most Iraqis have chosen to govern them. The U.S. military, particularly the Navy, has been sent by the White House to help victims of recent natural catastrophes: the tsunami, the Pakistani earthquake, and the Philippine mudslide. This meant the expenditure of manpower, time, and billions in aid matriel in repeated bids for goodwill. However, such "humanitarian" generosity is not purchasing the U.S. the love of either the stricken populations or their governments, as is intended. To earn their love, the U.S. must show evidence of pain. The U.S. to date has shown no pain in giving. The generosity earns us no merit or credit. How Kantian! Those ragged-looking mobs on our TV screens, accepting our bottled water, blankets, and bags of grain one day, will the next demonstrate against us with curses and flag-burnings. This suggests that they are wiser to the irony of altruism than is George Bush or Tony Blair. It is another kind of fatal irony that while Third World countries (remember that derogatory but apt term?), including all Arab countries, are exercising their "self-determination," the nations of Europe are surrendering their own to the super bureaucracy of the European Union. What began long ago as the "Common Market," ostensively dedicated to lowering or eliminating protectionist trade barriers for the sake of increasing every nation's prosperity and well-being, has morphed into a bizarre, wealth and sovereignty consuming alliance of the inept against the able and the still prosperous. Particular animosity is reserved for Britain, which has one foot inside the Union and one out of it. Now a new surrender of sovereignty is in the making: obeisance to the sensitivities of Muslims residing in Europe. Franco Frattini, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and Security, remarked in response to the anger against the Danish cartoons, that Europe "was aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression." Which is as much as saying: We are willing to gag our press in exchange for your not burning more cars, killing cartoonists, or going on a rampage. But, there is hope for Europe yet. The French shot down the lumbering, politically correct EU constitution, probably to the relief of most Europeans. What would sentence the bureaucracy in Brussels to sure death would be an act of secession by one or two of the more prosperous members of the Union. This welcome development may occur. But those countries must first reject altruism and its partner in politics, collectivism. They must first learn that individualism and free speech cannot coexist with their antipodes within or without their borders. Daniel Pipes, one of the most intransigent and prodigious sources of information about Islam, terrorism and the jihadist agenda, and whose knowledge of the creed and its blood-thirsty players is encyclopedic, denies that the "cartoon" war is "clash of civilizations" or a "war of cultures." Ironically, he claims that Arabs should realize that "disengagement" from the West in the form of boycotts against Danish or Scandinavian products will only cause the Arabs to suffer and experience further alienation from the West and its values, which could be said to ensure happiness on earth for the living. The irony here is that most Arabs -- of "the street," of the diplomatic, of jihadist suasion -- place happiness on earth last in the list of their means and goals. Muslims are forbidden to make moral judgments of their creed. Period. Their acceptance of the whole cloth of the Koran and Hadith -- Shi'ite, Sunni, it little matters the sectarian version of the creed -- must be total and without reservation. Most of them are willing to sacrifice lives, wealth, and liberty to achieve Islamic hegemony on earth, or at least see the more activist among them achieve it in their name with beheadings, IEDs, suicide bombings, and fatwahs on Western cartoonists. They never grow tired of the U.S. saying it is sorry, and derive obvious, unspeakable pleasure in seeing a giant grovel, stumble and stammer. We must thank Western news services for rushing to show us just how angry the "Arab street" is and how joyful it can be when the West offends it or suffers a setback. All those televised forays into Cairo coffee houses, alongside Iraqi funerals, and in the midst of gunfire-punctuated Palestinian demonstrations to solicit and broadcast the average Arab's opinion of the U.S. are intended to drive home to Western viewers lessons in moral equivalence. Actually, they work to achieve just the opposite: a contempt for maliciously medieval minds, regardless of whether their owners wear traditional garb or Nike baseball caps. The average American must ask himself, when he sees Arab men and boys beating themselves on their heads with swords, or dying by the hundreds in stampedes to throw pebbles at a rock: Is this what we're sending our troops to protect? For whose country or what values are our troops dying and being maimed for life? This is what we're supposed to respect? Why aren't we doing something about Iran, and Syria, and Saudi Arabia? Aren't they our real enemies? What are we waiting for? Another 9/11? Americans do not realize that President Bush and his ilk are waiting for tolerance and altruism to work their "magic." The multiculturalist philosophy that denies the West any degree of superiority over demonstrably inferior cultures is not advancing the gospel of "equality" in the pestholes of the world, which include Iraq and Afghanistan. One may include Pakistan and any other nation with a Muslim majority. Quite the opposite. It has given those pestholes, each ruled by a tripartite philosophy of mysticism, stagnation and corruption, leave to declare war on the West. Of course, the latest irony is President Bush's stubborn, reason-defying defence of a plan to hand over management of American ports to an Arab firm based in Dubai. Would FDR have proposed handing over management of American ports to a German firm during World War II, because it was more "efficient"? Don't worry about it, say the press secretary and the news anchors. Look at Dubai's skyline, it's so modern! They're even planning on building the world's tallest skyscraper here. And the U.S. Navy calls on Dubai hundreds of times. But, one wonders how much all that is costing the U.S. taxpayer in oil prices and expenditures to maintain our military in a war the White House refuses to prosecute. However, if we can't trust the Pakistani intelligence and military to hunt down the Taliban and bin Laden, or the Iraqi government not to turn against its sponsor, the U.S., why should we trust the interlocking Arab connections that would profit from Bush's folly to not let Al Quada or the Muslim Brotherhood or President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to sneak a WMD into the U.S.? Didn't Dubai only last week agree, at the behest of Adolf Ahmadinejad, to stop anti-Iranian broadcasts? With allies in the "war on terror" like Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- whose president planted a Judas kiss on Bush by demanding that the Mohammed cartoons cease -- who needs enemies? Altruism delivers a Judas kiss every time it is embraced in foreign policy. All we need do is turn the other cheek to receive it. It has been the premier liar and traitor of Western history. Sometimes the unintended consequences are immediate; at other times, long in fruition. We are witnessing a souffl of both. But its practitioners have never been the ones to pay the price. When men begin to tire of being lied to and betrayed and sacrificed in the name of an unearthly ideal, when reason rules men's means, ends and values, that will be the end of altruist irony.

Originally from Gus Van Horn, Both the President and the Vatican had stern-sounding words for rioting Moslems today. Unfortunately, both, when read between the lines, had said exactly what the Moslems were hoping to hear. First, the leader of the most powerful free country in the world, George W. Bush denounced the recent bombing of a major mosque in Iraq with the following words. Except for the fact that so much of what gets preached in mosques these days amounts to incitement, one could, I suppose, call such an act "evil". Too bad we didn't get the same term from our President concerning the worldwide jihad against free speech also known as "the cartoon riots". Here's an example of what he said about those: "Fully understand people not liking the catroons"? Bush might as well cultivate a lisp and set money aside for his jizyah. While he sounds like he understands the importance of freedom of speech here, his failure to morally condemn the deadly rioting reeks of weakness to these animals. "What will this man do to us if he is afraid even to state his mind about what we are doing?" they will rightly ask. The man in charge of protecting our sacred rights has no business walking on eggshells just because some followers of the religion that inspired the deaths of 3,000 Americans in a single morning claim to be "offended". Until terrorism, rioting, and murder committed in Allah's name become newsworthy again, no Moslem has a right to be offended about anything coming from a Westerner. And then there's the Vatican. Prima facie, the Catholic Church sounds far better. Note the two passages in bold. To the first, it is sad that the Church is asking for reciprocation from Moslems when our President fails to do even this much. (Indeed, he should be demanding and enforcing reciprocation from Moslems the world over for the rights their coreligionists enjoy in America.) But notice that the Church agrees that Moslems were "right to be outraged". Freedom is not what the Church is concerned about. Rather, the focus is on religion. Notice that the Church's entire focus is on the rights of Christians, and specifically, of them to practice their faith. Both Washington and the Vatican have vigorously denounced acts against religion, but sound almost indifferent by comparison concerning acts against men. Moslems demonstrate so frequently with suicide bombings the consequences of placing a higher value on religion than on man's life that there is no excuse for a failure on anyone's part to appreciate the point. This makes the statements of both Bush and the Vatican completely unacceptable. In each case, the notion that religion is more important than man's life was implicitly supported. Agreeing with your enemy's most evil premise is no way to confront him, to rally a defense, or to win. -- CAV PS: The piece on the Vatican is titled very aptly, coming from the mainstream media: "Vatican to Muslims: practice what you preach." this sounds fantastic to Westerners and fanatics alike. The Westerners will be thinking about the calls for "tolerance" from Moslems. But what of this Koranic verse: "Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war." Quran, Sura 9:5"? Looks like the fanatics already are "practicing what they preach". PPS: Here's a very funny animated cartoon I learned about on the phone with my friend Tom. I believe the first word is Dutch for "sensitivity".

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason, You know what Objectivist bloggers need: a blog carnival of their own. I propose the Rule of Reason host the first "Carnival of the Objectivists" Saturday, March 4th. After that, we can pass on the hosting to other Objectivist blogs, say once every two weeks or so. Drop a line in the comments box if you want to include your blog or website and be a future host. Let's have some fun this--it's carnival-time! Update: So here's the plan: participants (you) should let the host know (me) what's hot on your respective blogs. As host, I?ll put it all together in one article, add a festive atmosphere and publish it all on the 4th. The only caveat: This carnival will be an Objectivist carnival, and Objectivishes are not allowed. And if you want to sign up to host the next Objectivist carnival (every two weeks should be enough to encourage good content on the smaller blogs), let me know, and I'll administer that process as well (well, I?ll just put your blog on the list). Think the competition to be the host city for the Olympics, only with the bribery being heartily encouraged. :-P That?s it. Let?s have some fun!

[Merged. Was separate thread.] Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason, Harry Binswanger gets to the heart of the issue: Exactly. Have I mentioned that you ought to subscribe to HBL recently?

Originally from The Charlotte Capitalist ™, Are you a Disney fan? Scott Holleran reviews a classic: Walt Disney's Lady and the Tramp is another animated feature in Disney's vault that deserves praise and attention. To this uninitiated viewer, this movie, released in 1955, always looked like a harmless treat about a couple of dogs that swoon over one another. It is that and more, and it's far superior to what passes for kids' movies. More here.

Originally posted by Nicholas Provenzo from The Rule of Reason, So some folks from the United Arab Emirates want to buy six American ports. No big deal?unless the purchase is blocked by the government?and that looks quite threatening. So here's my question to the anti-free ownership advocates (it?s a three-fer): 1.) What does American ownership of the ports give law enforcement that they don?t already have given that the ports are already foreign controlled (the ports in question are already owned by a British firm)? 2.) If you support American-based ports being repatriated by law, what would your reaction be if an foreign government repatriated American-owned property that rest on its shores? 3.) Do you disagree that repatriating foreign-owned property would have negative economic implications for the US? Do you think foreigners would still feel secure investing in the US?

Originally from The Charlotte Capitalist ™, This is from Amit Ghate at Thrutch: I would like to dedicate this post to the cowards at The Charlotte Observer.