New Joss Whedon Series

Joss has a new TV series forthcoming: The Dollhouse. Here's the basic scoop:

Whedon's new Fox series, called Dollhouse, stars Miss Eliza Dushku, best known as Faith to you Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans. And, this show isn't just a pilot. It's already been given a seven-episode commitment by Fox. Whoo!

The series, according to Fox, is about "Echo (Eliza Dushku), a young woman who is literally everybody's fantasy. She is one of a group of men and women who can be imprinted with personality packages, including memories, skills, language—even muscle memory—for different assignments. The assignments can be romantic, adventurous, outlandish, uplifting, sexual and/or very illegal. When not imprinted with a personality package, Echo and the others are basically mind-wiped, living like children in a futuristic dorm/lab dubbed the Dollhouse, with no memory of their assignments—or of much else. The show revolves around the childlike Echo's burgeoning self-awareness, and her desire to know who she was before, a desire that begins to seep into her various imprinted personalities and puts her in danger both in the field and in the closely monitored confines of the Dollhouse."

Woooohoooo!

Read more...

Jarhead

I'm still sick, so I've not yet returned to work. That's why I watched the movie Jarhead this afternoon. I wasn't expecting much from it, as I recalled Nick Provenzo's negative comments on it.

While I didn't expect the movie to be heroic, I didn't expect it to be so completely pointless. In fact, its rambling-to-nowhere was its only point. As Nick says,

The fundamental theme of Jarhead's portrayal of Marine life is that heroes do not exist. One cannot depict the Marine Corps accurately without noting that at least some of its members perform feats of strength, endurance and bravery, and that to build an entire institution of such men, certain virtues are required. Yet like Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket," a movie acclaimed for its supposed depiction of Viet Nam-era marines, none of these men and certainly none of these virtues are to be found.

Instead, what one finds in Jarhead are empty men who drift though life, denied of what they truly want, and who choose to make up for it in emotional outbursts and sadistic and debased pleasures.

Yup.

Read more...

Affirmative Action Debate

On the evening of November 5th, the L.O.G.I.C. (the UCLA Objectivist Club) will be hosting a debate on affirmative action featuring Ward Connerly, Richard Sander, and Peter Schwartz. More details can be found on the club's web site.

Update: Paul posted the following in the comments:

The affirmative action issue is a good example where a single person can create significant positive political and cultural change. Ward Connerly's tireless efforts to eliminate race-based admissions in the University of California system seemed doomed to failure in the mid-1990s, especially given the liberal mindset of California in general and of the academicians in particular. And his initial efforts did fail. But he persisted, and as a result there have been significant changes in the university admissions policies in California, Texas, Florida, and Michigan. The battle is not over by any means, but a single person armed with clear rational convictions can and has made a tremendous difference in framing the terms of the debate and moving important parts of the culture in the right direction.

I like to cite this issue as an real-life example whenever I am faced with gloom-and-doom Objectivists who say that "socialized medicine is inevitable" or "this country is going to the sewer and there's nothing we can do about it". Of course it's irrational to take a pollyanna-ish approach (e.g., "Objectivism is automatically going to win because the ideas are correct and in accordance with reality"), just as it's irrational to take a doom-and-gloom approach ("Objectivism will never win because the forces of irrationality are too powerful"). But if Objectivists are willing to work in their self-interest to advocate good ideas in the appropriate time and fashion, then I believe there is reason for rational optimism.

In particular, I wholeheartedly agree with some of the folks at the ARI who think that Objectivists should be spending less time arguing minutia amongst themselves in internet Objectivist online forums and instead should be willing to go onto mainstream forums, blog comment boards, etc., and post their ideas to the wider world. Planting philosophical seeds in support of reason, ethical egoism, individual rights, and capitalism can bear fruit in surprising places. These comments don't need to be long essays - just a couple of short polite sentences stating ones views (perhaps with links to more detailed arguments on the ARI or other Objectivist websites) could suffice, depending on one's comfort level with writing.

This is not to disparage Objectivist online forums per se. Those can be good places to discuss ideas in a friendly setting. But what I am criticizing is the kind of person who spends disproportionate intellectual effort engaging in pointless discussions of Objectivist hair-splitting in an insular setting, rather than taking up the more significant challenge of advocating his ideas in a constructive fashion to the rest of the non-Objectivist world.

In that way, it's no different from hearing someone at work saying, "Shouldn't the government guarantee health care as a right for everyone?", then being willing to respond with something like, "Actually that would be a terrible idea; that would turn doctors and nurses into slaves, and screw over honest, responsible patients as well."

Read more...

Dressage Humor

Yup, the best horse in Europe:

Read more...

Book Recommendation Wanted

I recently received this e-mail from Jason Head:

I am a daily reader of your blog and have been for several years. My question is not philosophical, but I believe that you or your readers may be able to lead me in the right direction. I am looking for an economics and/or investing book which explains in laymen terms what the Federal Reserve does, what it purports to do, and the actual consequences of its actions from a free market perspective. Do you or your loyal readers have any suggestions for reading on this topic?

I know almost nothing about the Fed. Does anyone have any suggestions? (Disloyal readers are welcome to chime in too.)

Read more...

The State of Evangelical Politics

This lengthy New York Times article on the state of political activism amongst evangelical Christians was fascinating.

Two comments:

(1) I'm not surprised to hear more about the recent leanings of evangelicals toward the socialism and environmentalism of the Democrats. Socialism is, after all, better supported by Christian scripture than opposition to abortion. So evangelicals will likely be actively courted by both political parties for the foreseeable future. All that can be hoped for is some kind of secular candidate in the 2008 presidential election, since voting for a left-wing theocrat (e.g. Obama) over a right-wing theocrat (e.g. Huckabee) would be futile.

(2) The source of the disillusionment with Bush's Iraq War among evangelicals is instructive: the problem is that the war is not altruistic enough. That new-found Christian pacifism will not only preclude any fight against our enemies abroad but also invigorate entitlements for the needy at home. That's bad all around.

Much more could be said about the article, but I'm still too sick for much heavy thinking.

Read more...

Mr. Deity, Season Two

In a brand-new episode, Mr. Deity concretizes President Bush's conversations with God. (Via Adam Mossoff.)

Read more...

Sick Sick Sick, Movie Movie

I'm horribly, miserably sick today with some kind of head cold. It has been coming on since Tuesday morning, but I staved it off until Friday afternoon. (My mom was visiting until then, so I was determined not to be sick.) So I just had a bit of a sore throat, scratchy voice, and hugely swollen lymph nodes until yesterday. Then I began to enjoy the distinct pleasures of a stuffy nose and total exhaustion. So now I'm miserable.

I'm also bored out of my tree, as I can't do any thinking in my condition. I've cleaned out all the backlogged episodes of The Dog Whisperer from my TiVo. (I do enjoy the show, but not all day long!) I also watched M. Night Shyamalan's The Village. I can't say much about it without giving away the plot, but I did enjoy it despite the theme. It wasn't nearly as well done as Signs though. (That was stellar art in the service of a totally corrupt theme.)

Also, on Thursday evening, we watched The Lives of Others. It's a German movie about life before the fall of the Berlin Wall. It's fantastic; I cannot recommend it enough.

Read more...

Kant, Savior of Religion

ICK:

Religion has faced formidable foes in its history. But atheism hasn't generally been one of them -- until today. A recent string of bestselling books has put believers of all stripes on the defensive. Religion, say authors such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens, is an unreasonable form of blind faith, often leading to fanaticism and violence. Reason and science, they contend, are the only proper foundations for forming opinions and understanding the universe. Those who believe in God, they insist, are falling for silly superstitions.

This atheist attack is based on a fallacy -- the Fallacy of the Enlightenment. It was pointed out by the great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant erected a sturdy intellectual bulwark against atheism that hasn't been breached since. His defense doesn't draw on sacred texts or any other sources of authority to which people of faith might naturally and rightfully turn when confronted with atheist arguments. Instead, it relies on the only framework that today's atheist proselytizers say is valid: reason. The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know -- reality itself. This view says we can find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. It holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality.

That's from Dinesh D'Souza, unsurprisingly. He's the author of the just-published book, What's So Great About Christianity. (Yes, I do plan to read it.)

Read more...

Ayn Rand Lexicon Online

Cool: The Ayn Rand Lexicon is now available on the web at www.aynrandlexicon.com.

Read more...

American Belief in the Supernatural

According to this recent survey, nearly 1/3rd of Americans believe in ghosts and 23% believe they've personally seen or felt the presence of one. Also, "About one out of five people, 19 percent, say they accept the existence of spells or witchcraft. Nearly half, 48 percent, believe in extrasensory perception, or ESP."

For those who wish to promote a culture of rationality, this means there's a significant "market opportunity"!

Read more...

The First Mobile Phone

It's easy to forget how quickly technology can advance. But stories like this help remind us of the power of the human mind:

Motorola's DynaTAC (Dynamic Adaptive Total Area Coverage) 8000X was the world's first commercially released mobile phone -- making its debut in 1983 at the price of $3,995.

The company spent over $100-million and 15 years developing the technology. At 13 x 1.75 x 3.5 in., the DynaTAC 8000X featured an LED display and up to 30-minutes of talk time when fully charged. It was available in three different color combinations, which included tan/gray, tan, and dark gray.

Read more...

Invitation to The Objectivism Seminar

Truly living well calls for engaging fundamental philosophical ideas and integrating their use into our everyday lives, our everyday actions, our way of being—into our souls. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to get busy with all the urgent things around us, and we can drift, distracted and disintegrated. For those of us who want an ongoing practice in such engagement (and those who want to explore the need for that in the first place), I have created The Objectivism Seminar.

The Objectivism Seminar is a weekly online conference call to systematically work through the philosophy of Ayn Rand via the books of prominent Rand scholars. These moderated, one-hour sessions will be recorded and podcast to allow review, catch-up, and even disconnected participation. The idea is to give people—new and experienced alike—a forum to chew through key Objectivist works and tour the complete system, further clarifying, integrating, and grounding their grasp of the ideas.

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

If you are interested, please look over the FAQ below and head over to www.ObjectivismSeminar.com to sign up!

Pass the word,
Greg

The Objectivism Seminar FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

Q: What is The Objectivism Seminar?
A: The Objectivism Seminar is a weekly online conference call to systematically work through the philosophy of Ayn Rand via the books of prominent Rand scholars. These moderated one-hour sessions will be recorded and podcast to allow review, catch-up, and even disconnected participation.

Q: How much does it cost?
A: The cost is $15 per person per book to participate in or access the recordings of the sessions (and it is refundable in full for any reason whatsoever in your first five sessions). But Objectivist luminaries who have or might produce the sorts of substantive books, articles, and lectures we are studying are only allowed to participate for free. ;^)

Q: Do I have to be an Objectivist to participate?
A: No. The purpose of the seminar is to give people a means to critically engage Objectivism and improve their understanding of the philosophy. Anybody who is polite and honest in this effort is welcome; anybody who disrupts others in that endeavor is not. (The process of examining ideas can be challenging enough that we certainly don't need to have someone being rude or beating us up psychologically while we do it!)

Q: What are the books we'll be working through?
A: Here are the books and the order in which we'll study them:

1. Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Dr. Tara Smith
2. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff
3. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand
4. (to be determined)

Q: How much material will we cover per week? (How heavy is the work load?)
A: We all have busy lives, so this is designed to be a slow-and-steady project. I hope we can work through a chapter every two weeks, but depending on the material and peoples' needs and interests, that will vary. In raw numbers, the expected load will be an average of 15 pages of reading and one hour of discussion per week.

Q: When, where, and how do we meet?
A: Sunday evenings 7:30-9:00 Mountain, we'll meet in an online conference call so people from anywhere can join in. For those who miss a meeting (and those who want to join in halfway through a book), we'll have recordings of the sessions archived on the www.ObjectivismSeminar.com website. The website will also host links to any diagrams drawn in the sessions, and there will be a discussion forum where people can work out issues during the week to bring to the sessions.

Q: What tools will I need?
A: [See the website for the current online tools that are needed.]

Q: Conference calls can be pretty chaotic and noisy, especially if you have a lot of people on the line...
A: These will not be anything-goes bull sessions—I will moderate the sessions to keep us on track with the agenda and in alignment with the purpose of the seminar. And we'll try to hold the conference call noise and conversational chaos to a minimum by keeping everybody muted except for those actively talking. Our Group Chat will allow anyone to signal that they would like to speak (and by giving a hint of what they want to talk about, they'll also help make the session more focused and productive).

Q: What will the structure of the sessions be like?
A: We'll always be trying to improve how we run things, but let's begin with this basic plan:

• Up to 5 or 10 minutes of follow-up discussion around any past material (good for raising that issue that hit you in the shower after the previous week's discussion, as well as a chance for those who participate by only listening to the podcasts to raise their issues for comment via email to the moderator).
• Introduction of the current material with the leader's quick sketch of the highlights (good for reminding people of the scope of the discussion and prompting their observations, questions, etc.).
• Extended discussion of the current material, with people 'raising hands' to be unmuted (the Chat lets participants give a hint of what they want to raise or follow up on, as well as to second what someone else wants to raise, both of which will let the leader better organize the session). The leader will usually address what is raised, but may also defer to others who can better address it, further clarify what has already been said, or (best of all) correct a confused response.

Q: How did you select the books and their order?
A: The goal is to work through the entire system, and Peikoff's book is the definitive single-volume systematic presentation of Rand's philosophy. Ethics is where the philosophical rubber meets the road in our lives, and Smith's book is the most thorough and enlightening presentation of the substance of Rand's ethics that exists. And Rand's monograph on concept formation is important because understanding the core of her epistemology will strengthen our understanding of her distinctive methodology and the character of her entire system. As for the order, there's a great reason for that, and I'm glad you'll ask about it in the first session! :^)

Q: What's the fine print?
A: Here are the details I could think of to keep The Objectivism Seminar sailing as smoothly as possible; other wrinkles will be addressed as they arise.

• GOVERNANCE: To put it simply, this is not a democracy. The Objectivism Seminar is a benevolent dictatorship, and I am The Man. :^) I will work for openness and consensus, and entertain suggestions about how to make this a fun and productive adventure for all—and when there are difficulties I will do my best to be patient and fair (I'm not without experience in this, and also not without room to grow). Ultimately, though, my call will constitute the final word on the forum.
• REFUNDS: The fee is fully refundable for any reason whatsoever in your first five sessions; after that, refunds will only happen for my failure to similarly conduct the ongoing sessions, and they will be pro-rated by the percentage of the book not yet discussed. (In all cases, Seminar refunds will exclude any cut PayPal may keep for our transactions.) Potential causes of pro-rated refunds would include: infrastructure difficulties making production of the Seminar too painful to continue, changes in my life that make conducting future sessions infeasible, my changing these terms in a way you don't like, my choosing to exclude you from the Seminar, etc. This venture was created to learn and spread good philosophical ideas in our culture, so the Seminar revenue is directed to that end: paying for the hosting facilities and any work done in the background, with the remaining balance going to ARI's wonderful Free Books for Teachers program.
• MEETING TIMES: The regular meeting time may shift to another day or time as life requires, and there will need to be occasional weeks off for holidays, vacation, hospitalization, etc. (Because I don't have the luxury of listening to the podcast and following up at the next session or via written questions. :^)
• RECORDINGS: Please keep in mind that the session recordings will belong to me and may not be shared, transferred, or distributed in any way without my explicit permission. Also, the recordings may be edited at my discretion to remove segments with, say, disturbing or distracting misbehavior. (Or, if you bribe me well enough, to remove that comment you made and can't bear to have people hearing in ten years.)

[Updates: revised to reflect our dropping Skype and adopting Gizmo; adjusted refund section to reflect Paypal perhaps relinquishing its fees in the case of a refund. Revised for policy and platform changes adopted during first book.]

Read more...

Conceptual Art on Global Warming

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

TO: All CU-Boulder Students

FROM: Center for Energy & Environmental Security, University of Colorado Law School

SENDER: dorank@colorado.edu

DATE: 10/22/07

SUBJECT: Famous Artist Lectures on Climate Change

What: The Art of Climate Change
Where: Wittemyer Courtroom, Wolf Law
When: Oct. 25, 7:00 - 8:15 p.m., Free Event

Dear CU-Boulder Students:

Climate change is arguably the defining environmental and social issue of the 21st century. You are invited to attend a special lecture by Ms. Lucy Lippard on the use of art to impact climate change. Ms. Lippard is an internationally renowned writer, activist, curator, and acclaimed art critic.

This is not a lecture about the science of climate change; nor is it a lecture about laws and policies dealing with climate change.

Rather, this distinguished lecture is about the use of conceptual art to illuminate our understanding of the environmental, social and political dimensions of climate change; and perhaps more importantly, the ability of art to substantially influence our response to the challenges posed by climate change.

Ms. Lippard's lecture, entitled "Weather Report: Art and Climate Change," will present imaginative and inspiring collaborations between acclaimed artists and world-class scientists designed to address, in a variety of ways, the issue of climate change. In a New York Times article published on Sept. 23, 2007, Ms. Lippard commented on these collaborations: "The critics used to say that conceptual art brings in too much other stuff, too many ideas. I love the idea that art can become something that acts in the world."

Please join us in welcoming and learning from our distinguished guest, Ms. Lucy Lippard.

For more information on this event, please visit: http://www.colorado.edu/law/eesi/Weather_Report.htm.

Oh, how I do love the auto-parody!

Read more...

Leonard Peikoff, Podcaster

Dr. Peikoff's first podcast has just been posted to his web site. You can e-mail him questions to answer at leonard@peikoff.com.

Hooray!

Read more...

The Neurophysiology of Religious Experience

Scientific American has an interesting article summarizing what is known about the neurophysiology of meditation and religious experiences. The article does a good job describing the science, but in the end takes a deliberately agnostic view about the meaning of the results. Here are some excerpts:

Spiritual neuroscience studies also face the profound challenge of language. No two mystics describe their experiences in the same way, and it is difficult to distinguish among the various types of mystical experiences, be they spiritual or traditionally religious. To add to the ambiguity, such feelings could also encompass awe of the universe or of nature. “If you are an atheist and you live a certain kind of experience, you will relate it to the magnificence of the universe. If you are a Christian, you will associate it with God. Who knows?

...Moreover, no matter what neural correlates scientists may find, the results cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Although atheists might argue that finding spirituality in the brain implies that religion is nothing more than divine delusion, the nuns were thrilled by their brain scans for precisely the opposite reason: they seemed to provide confirmation of God’s interactions with them. After all, finding a cerebral source for spiritual experiences could serve equally well to identify the medium through which God reaches out to humanity. Thus, the nuns’ forays into the tubular brain scanner did not undermine their faith. On the contrary, the science gave them an even greater reason to believe.

Read more...

Values Voters for Huckabee

The straw poll at the recent "Values Voters Summit" yielded some noteworthy results:

Romney took 27.6 percent of almost 6,000 votes cast, just ahead of Mike Huckabee, the folksy former governor of Arkansas, who gained 27.1 percent at the conference organized by the Family Research Council.

Maverick Texas Congressman Ron Paul was third with almost 15 percent while former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson got under 10 percent, a major disappointment for his campaign.

Giuliani was eighth with 107 votes -- under 2 percent.

Apparently, Romney's campaign encouraged his supporters to register online with the Family Research Council to vote for him. So Huckabee might well be the man to watch.

Marc Ambindiner of The Atlantic observes:

Huckabee has made a habit of performing well at straw polls like these; there did seem to be a fair number of FairTax supporters, and they may have helped. But Huckabee's victory -- without much organizing -- suggests that his powers of persuasion are mighty and that the social conservative activists have come to know who he is and what he's about.

It's hardly surprising that Huckabee appeals to evangelicals. On his issues page, the first item is "Religion and Politics." The summary says: "My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives." In other words, "I, Mike Huckabee, plan to govern as President of the United States of America based on my delusions about the will of God, as opposed to based on any kind of rational evaluation of the facts."

Consistent with that faith-based approach to politics, Huckabee advocates constitutional amendments to ban abortion and to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He also says that his "personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life." Consistent with Jesus' admonition against divorce except for "unchastity" (Matthew 5:32), he supports -- and helped Ankansas adopt -- covenant marriage.

Obviously, Huckabee doesn't have much national name-recognition yet. However, I worry that he might appeal to fiscal conservatives oblivious or indifferent to the danger of further entanglement of religion and politics. After all, he advocates the replacement of all federal income, payroll, corporate, and capital gains taxes with the "Fair Tax," i.e. a sales tax on all consumption above the poverty level. That might seem very appealing to the fiscal conservatives frustrated by President Bush's wild spending.

Read more...

New poll: 8.1% of Americans have read Atlas

For the 50th anniversary of Rand's magnum opus, Zogby International was commissioned to survey Americans on having read Atlas. The press release is pretty short, and reports on slipping in among others, the question: "Have you ever read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand?" Some of the numbers reported included:

• 8.1% of Americans have read Atlas.
• 14% of those earning more than $100,000 have read it; 2% of those earning less than $35,000 have read it.
• Men and women were equally represented.
• People in the east, west, and south were about twice as likely to have read it than those in the central/Great Lakes region.
  

1239 Americans were surveyed (for an accuracy of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points).

Read more...

Amazon MP3s

Hooray for capitalism! Amazon's cheaper and DRM-free MP3 store is going to put the squeeze on iTunes!

Yes, you should use that link! Baby needs new shoes Diana needs books on moral responsibility, tort law, and character development.

Read more...

Hysterical Star Wars Trumpet Solo

Via Flibbert:



It was so much worse -- and so much funnier -- than I imagined possible.

Read more...

Supposed Hawk Seeks Death of Military

Silly me, I didn't think the altruism of the Bush Administration could morally decimate our military any further. Yet, it has: Preventing War Leads New Naval Strategy.

In the first major revision of U.S. naval strategy in two decades, maritime officials said Wednesday they plan to focus more on humanitarian missions and improving international cooperation as a way to prevent conflicts. "We believe that preventing wars is as important as winning wars," said the new strategy announced by the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. The strategy reflects a broader Defense Department effort to use aid, training and other cooperative efforts to encourage stability in fledgling democracies and create relationships around the globe that can be leveraged if a crisis does break out in a region.

"Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and cooperation cannot be surged," says the 16-page document entitled "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower." It also says forces will be concentrated "where tensions are high or where we wish to demonstrate to our friends and allies our commitment to security" -- something the U.S. did earlier this year in sending an additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region as a show of force toward Iran. "Credible combat power will be continuously posted in the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital interests, assure our friends ... and deter and dissuade potential adversaries," the strategy document said.

...Adm. Mike Mullen -- who just left his job as head of the Navy to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- has said he sees the Navy's humanitarian work as key to the effort to defeat terrorism by winning hearts and minds. When Roughead succeeded Mullen at the Navy last week, he called in a speech for more international partnerships to make the Navy a "force for good" around the globe.

The various cuts in military funding commonly proposed by "doves" does not compare to the rejection of the basic moral purpose of the military by the supposed "hawk" who sits in the Oval Office. For more details on the effect of altruism on national defense, see Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein's article "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense. (Via Robert LC.)

Read more...

OCB

Thanks to Gus Van Horn, I've just been diagnosed with OCB. That's "Obsessive Compulsive Bookwormism."



That description is perfect!

P.S. Gus also has a great ghost story.

Read more...

Objectivism Versus Christianity

The already-lengthy comment thread on this article on the rejection of Christian values by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism might be worth a post or two. The article itself accurately states the principles of the Objectivist ethics, then leaps off the cliff with the following:

Rand's inversion of biblical norms had predictable results: Scott Ryan, who wrote a book on Rand's philosophy, called objectivism a "psychologically totalitarian personality cult that allowed Rand . . . to exercise personal power over [her] unwitting victims." He cites, for example, the way she manipulated "her own unemployed and dependent husband" to get him to agree for her to have "an adulterous sexual affair."

We're not talking here about personal flaws or merely human weaknesses. As Ryan puts it, these abuses are "demonstrably connected to Rand's own 'philosophical' premises"--that is, her worldview.

Rand and her followers, you see, lived in a way consistent with her worldview. But you can hardly regard a philosophy that exalts selfishness and condemns altruism as the basis for a good society.

Obviously, that characterization of Ayn Rand's actions is completely wrong. (Thank you, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, yet again!) Yet the critical point is that the author merely quotes Ryan's assertion of a strong connection between her philosophy and that supposed behavior -- without even hinting at the nature of that actual connection. One can only suppose that the author regards respecting other people as a form of self-sacrifice.

I'm happy to see articles like this one published. It doesn't misrepresent Objectivism, except by implication. It rightly claims that the ideas of Objectivism are wholly opposed to those of Christianity. Those two points might well inspire some curious people to pick up Atlas Shrugged. Heck, it might even lead some ordinary conservatives to question whether they can admire both Jesus and John Galt, as many claim to do.

You can find the comments -- over 210 so far -- here.

Read more...

A Sign of Our Times

Completely pathetic:

Religious movie star Mark Wahlberg struggled with the script in director M. Night Shyamalan's new movie The Happening - because his character was required to blaspheme. Wahlberg has no problems swearing in his often gritty movies, but he tried not to use God's name in vain. So, when his latest director asked him to blaspheme, Wahlberg admits he had a real dilemma.

He explains, "I had to say 'G' 'D' in this new movie and that was extremely difficult... He (Shyamalan) asked me if I would say it and I did, and I asked for forgiveness that night when I got home."

Wahlberg was apparently born again while in prison. Blech!

Read more...

It Isn’t Easy Being Green

Keith Lockitch recently published the following excellent op-ed on the phenomenon of "green consumerism":

It Isn't Easy Being Green
By Keith Lockitch

It isn't news that environmentalism has gone mainstream in a big way--with organic food in every grocery store, hybrid cars on every freeway, and every mass-market magazine declaring green the "new black." More than ever before, consumers are buying into environmentalist ideology--and buying products that purport to impact nature less, in order to impact nature less.

One would think that serious environmentalists would be thrilled about this trend--thrilled that the public seems willing to take ecological marching orders and do its duty to the planet. But they aren't: A backlash against "buying green" has arisen in environmentalist circles, with critics disparaging the new eco-consumers as "light greens," and condemning the "Cosmo-izing of the green movement."

Surprising? Not really. Not if one grasps the deeper meaning of environmentalism.

Most people have a mistaken view of environmentalism. They see it as a movement whose goal is to protect the environment so that we, and future generations, may continue to enjoy it. Environmentalists might call for certain sacrifices--like stern priests calling upon us to do penance for our sins--but people take their word for it that those sacrifices will turn out to be for the good of "society." People feel virtuous in paying more for those organic blueberries and spending time washing out tin cans and nasty cloth diapers, because they see it as a sacrifice for the "greater good." And although "going green" may demand some cost and effort, it need not--on this view--be too burdensome nor demand personal hardships that are too great.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

Though environmentalists will often claim to be opposed to merely "indiscriminate" or "excessive" consumption of natural resources, their ideology actually drives them to oppose any act of altering nature for human purposes. The environmentalist goal of "preserving nature" unavoidably conflicts with the requirements of human life: Man's basic means of survival is to reshape nature to serve his ends, to take the raw materials of his environment and use them to produce values. But this requires "touching" nature, not leaving it untouched. Even organic crops require land and water and energy; even hybrid cars are built of metal and plastic and glass, and use up fuel. All human activity, on whatever scale, violates the environmentalist injunction to "leave nature alone."

This is why it is no surprise that environmentalist leaders would condemn "buying green" as a consumer trend. Says Michael Ableman, an organic farmer and environmental author: "The assumption that by buying anything, whether green or not, we're solving the problem is a misperception. Consuming is a significant part of the problem to begin with." In other words, the very act of consuming--i.e., pursuing material values in support of our lives--is a "problem."

Environmentalists are criticizing "buying green," because at root they are against buying anything.

Anyone who thinks that it's easy being "green"--that "eco-chic" is consistent with the principles of environmentalism--had better think harder about the true nature of the ideology they are helping bring into power. Environmentalists' call for minor sacrifices for the sake of some undefined "greater good" is the first stage in their call for sacrifice as such, for no human benefit whatsoever.

If environmentalists are now confident enough to start attacking "buying green" as superficial and hypocritical, we had better take them at their word and stop buying anything they have to sell, especially their poisonous ideology.

Keith Lockitch is a PhD in physics and a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

Copyright (c) 2007 Ayn Rand(R) Institute. All rights reserved.

Personally, I expect green consumerism to peak soon, then die down to a low hum. Why? Because much of it is nothing more than a fad diet. The obsession with organic food simply replaced the obsession with the low-carb diet. People abandoned low-carb in droves when they realized that it couldn't magically melt away pounds. The standard claim that organic food is healthier and more nutritious is obviously false. When people realize that they don't look or feel any better whether they eat organic rather than regular apples, they'll begin to wonder whether they're just wasting money. They'll also get tired of picking bugs out of their vegetables. (A friend and I found about 8 worms in 12 ears of organic corn bought for a Labor Day BBQ. Ick!) Moreover, with the deep greens attacking these lite greens for their feel-good pretense, many if not most people will wonder why they're bothering to shop green.

I hope.

Read more...

Grading Humor

I finished grading the first papers of my Intro Phil class today, so I found this collection of funny non-answers highly amusing.

Read more...

I Wish vs. It Is

Investigators were stymied in their hunt for this serial rapist/murderer -- they were trying to find a white guy in a white pickup and getting nowhere as bodies piled up. Then molecular biologist Tony Frudakis offered to determine the race of their suspect with DNA analysis. The frustrated team accepted, and were hit with a surprise that would turn their whole investigation in an entirely different direction:

There was a prolonged, stunned silence, followed by a flurry of questions looking for doubt but Frudakis had none. Would he bet his life on this, they wanted to know? Absolutely. In fact, he was certain that the Baton Rouge serial killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American.

... after the conference call with Frudakis, Lee jumped to the top of the suspect list. They got a subpoena for his DNA, collected a cheek swab and a day later, they had their answer: he was their man. Lee skipped town just ahead of the arrest warrant but was tracked down in Atlanta and returned to Baton Rouge within days. "CAUGHT" declared the Baton Rouge Advocate in giant print.

Relatives of the victims described their thrill and relief that a dangerous killer was finally off the streets, but also frustration that it has taken so long. Few people knew that the most crucial piece of evidence was not unearthed by the hapless task force or forensic scientists but by a drug developer some 800 miles away.

I love to see an active mind at work like this (he wasn't just solving the puzzle of this case, but also looking for a product to help his company survive). Frudakis developed a test that

uses a set of 176 genetic markers selected precisely because they disclose the most information about physical characteristics. ... No one sequence alone can predict ancestral origin. However, by looking collectively at hundreds and analyzing the frequency of the various markers, Frudakis says he could predict genetic ancestry with 99 percent accuracy.

Something that caught my attention was the clear sensitivity to the use of racial profiling, yet with no apparent awareness of what would make its use right or wrong. Consider that in their growing desperation, "police set up a dragnet to obtain DNA from some 1200 white men" (no probable cause, no warrant). But when they later thought they were after a black guy, they only used the racial information to filter their suspect list and focus their energies -- and they obtained a subpoena for the DNA sample needed to confirm his identity. This contrast in the use of racial information wasn't even noted, much less discussed.

But the part of the article that was most disturbing were the negative reactions cited, ranging from denial, to worry about a slippery slope into eugenics, and concluding with this jaw-dropper:

[Frudakis] has identified the gene sequences associated with height, and has compiled a database of 5000 digital photographs of people with almost every racial ancestry combination -- which, one day, he says could allow him to construct a physical portrait of a DNA donor, including melanin content, skin color or eye color.

But even the people one might think should be his biggest allies aren't supporting that, including Tony Clayton, the special prosecutor ... Clayton, who is black, admits that he initially dismissed Frudakis as some white guy trying to substantiate his racist views. He no longer believes that and says "had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pick-up truck." But then he adds, "We've been taught that we're all the same, that we bleed the same blood. If you subscribe to the (Frudakis) theory, you're saying we are inherently unequal."

He continues: "If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would."

Wow. Talk about a mind so addled by fashionable prejudices that it has disintegrated into incoherence. Sadly, he is not alone.

It isn't as if we aren't aware that, setting aside twins, we are all genetically unique (not unequal). That's the basis for DNA fingerprinting, after all. Likewise, it isn't any revelation that our skin, eye, and hair color are driven by our DNA. And general patters of ancestral similarity in these traits have long been noted. Basically, leaving behind the genetic markers Frudakis focuses on is like being spied by a (limited-resolution) security camera. But does anybody likewise worry about racist motives and inviting a eugenic slippery slope with the invention of security cameras? No. Would anybody in law enforcement likewise wish for their disappearance? Of course not.

Read more...

Heinlein Quote of the Day

Science fiction writer Robert Heinlein was philosophically mixed, but capable of some great quotes. Here's a classic that was recently cited on Instapundit:

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."

Read more...

Christianity in America

Monica recently wrote an excellent post on religion in American culture and politics. She cites some significant statistics about religious beliefs, but the most memorable tidbit is the story of the fundamentalist Christian's response to her aunt selling The Da Vinci Code at a yard sale. Yikes!

Read more...

50 Bush Quotes on Religion

50 Bush Quotes on Religion:

1. I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. (Sharm el-Sheikh August 2003)

2. I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job. (Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004)

3. I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God. (Washington, D.C., Jan. 14, 2005)

4. God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear. (Los Angeles, California, Mar. 3, 2004)

5. I tell people all the time, you're equally American if you're a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. You're equally American if you believe in an Almighty or don't believe in an Almighty. That's a sacred freedom. (Washington, D.C., Mar. 10, 2006)

6. Well, first of all, you got to understand some of my view on freedom, it's not American's gift to the world. See, freedom is God -- is God given. (Interview with TVR, Romania, Nov. 23, 2002)

7. I'm sure there is some kind of heavy doctrinal difference, which I'm not sophisticated enough to explain to you. (Explaining the issues involved in his switching from attending an Episcopal church to attending a Methodist one, around Jul. 1, 1994)

8. I don't think you order suiciders to kill innocent men, women, and children if you're a religious person. (Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, Jul. 14, 2004)

9. And there's nothing more powerful in helping change the country than the faith -- faith in Dios. (National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., May 16, 2002)

10. We believe in an Almighty, we believe in the freedom for people to worship that Almighty. They don't. (Martinsburg, West Virginia, Jul. 4, 2007)

11. The spirit of our people is the source of America's strength. And we go forward with trust in that spirit, confidence in our purpose, and faith in a loving God who made us to be free. (5th anniversary of the Sep. 11 attacks, White House, Sep. 11, 2006)

12. Churches all across the country are reaching out -- synagogues, people from different faiths understand that it makes sense to help their parishioners realize the benefits of this plan. (Sun City Center, Florida, May 9, 2006)

13.We can never replace lives, and we can't heal hearts, except through prayer. (Enterprise, Alabama, Mar. 3, 2007)

14. God bless the people of this part of the world. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, Aug. 4, 2007)

15. I believe there's an Almighty, and I believe the Almighty's great gift to each man and woman in this world is the desire to be free. This isn't America's gift to the world, it is a universal gift to the world, and people want to be free. (Manhattan, Kansas, Jan. 23, 2006)

16. I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah. (White House, Dec. 10, 200117.)

17. I see an opportunity at home when I hear the stories of Christian and Jewish women alike, helping women of cover, Arab American women go shop because they're afraid to leave their home. (Washington, D.C., Oct. 4, 2001)

18. It's a sign from above. Comment made when television light caught fire above crowd. (Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Mar. 9, 2001)

19. I did denounce it. I de- I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry. (Responding to attacks on his visit to ultra-conservative Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina, Feb. 25, 2000)

20. We are grateful for the freedoms we enjoy, grateful for the loved ones who give meaning to our lives, and grateful for the many gifts of this prosperous land. On Thanksgiving we acknowledge that all of these things, and life itself, come not from the hand of man, but from Almighty God. (Washington, D.C., Nov. 30, 2002)

21. We say in our country, everybody matters, everybody is precious in the sight of an Almighty. (Northern State University, Aberdeen, South Dakota, Oct. 31, 2002)

22. We love the fact that people can worship an almighty God any way they see fit here in America. (Phoenix, Arizona, Sep. 28, 2002)

23. And I just -- I cannot speak strongly enough about how we must collectively get after those who kill in the name of -- in the name of some kind of false religion. (Press appearance with King Abdullah of Jordan, Aug. 1, 2002)

24. We are commanded by God and called by our conscience to love others as we want to be loved ourselves. (Ohio State University, Jun. 14, 2002)

25. By being active citizens in your church or your synagogue, or for those Muslims, in your mosque, and adhering to the admission to love a neighbor just like you'd like to be loved yourself, that's how we can stand up. (Remarks to the cattle industry annual convention and trade show, Denver, Colorado, Feb. 8, 2002)

26. And we base it, our history, and our decision making, our future, on solid values. The first value is, we're all God's children. (Washington, D.C., Jul. 16, 2003)

27. One of the great things about this country is a lot of people pray. (Washington, D.C., Apr. 13, 2003)

28. And there's no doubt in my mind, when the United States acts abroad and home, we do so based upon values -- particularly the value that we hold dear to our hearts, and that is, everybody ought to be free. I want to repeat what I said during my State of the Union to you. Liberty is not America's gift to the world. What we believe strongly, and what we hold dear, is liberty is God's gift to mankind. And we hold that value precious. And we believe it is true. (White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, Feb. 9, 2003)

29. This great, powerful nation is motivated not by power for power's sake, but because of our values. If everybody matters, if every life counts, then we should hope everybody has the great God's gift of freedom. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Jan. 29, 2003)

30. The short-term objective of this country is to find an enemy and bring them to justice before they strike us. The long-term objective is to make this world a more free and hopeful and peaceful place. I believe we'll succeed because freedom is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world. (Portsmouth, Ohio, Sep. 10, 2004)

31. And if you choose to -- if you believe in the Almighty, you can -- you're equally an American. If you're a Jew, Christian or Muslim or Hindi or whatever. It is one of the great traits and traditions of our country, where people can worship the way you see fit. (Interview on Larry King Live, CNN, Aug. 15, 2004)

32. By the way, to whom much has been given, much is owed. Not only are we leading the world in terms of encouraging freedom and peace, we're feeding the hungry. We're taking care of, as best as we possibly can, the victims of HIV/AIDS. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Jul. 20, 2004)

33. Faith-based is an important part of my life, individually, but I don't -- I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith. (Prime time press conference, White House, Apr. 28, 2005)

34. I believe liberty is universal. I don't believe it is just for the United States of America alone. I believe there is an Almighty, and I believe the Almighty's gift to people worldwide is the desire to be free. (Fort Irwin, California, Apr. 4, 2007)

35. What a powerful statement to the world about the compassion of the American people that you're free to choose the religion you want in our country. (Washington, D.C., Sep. 29, 2006)

36. The United States of America must understand that freedom is universal, that there is an Almighty, and the great gift of that Almighty to each man and woman in this world is the desire to be free. (Nashville, Tennessee, Aug. 30, 2006)

37. Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research. ...Human life is a gift from our Creator -- and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale. (2006 State of the Union Address, Jan. 31, 2006)

38. One of the most -- I think one of the most important and interesting domestic initiatives, which I agree has created an interesting philosophical debate, is to allow faith-based programs and community-based programs to access federal money in order to achieve the results we all want. I mean, for example, if you're trying to encourage people to quit drinking, doesn't it make sense to give people somebody an alternative -- he can maybe go to a government counselor? Or how about somebody who calls upon a higher being to help you quit drinking? All I care about is the results. (Sterling, Virginia, Jan. 19, 2006)

39. Every new citizen of the United States has an obligation to learn our customs and values, including liberty and civic responsibility, equality under God and tolerance for others, and the English language. (Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 28, 2005)

40. We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom, and America will always be faithful to that cause. (Washington, D.C., Jan. 19, 2005)

41.Secondly, it's really important, Pete, that people not think government is a loving entity. Government is law and justice. Love comes from the hearts of people that are able to impart love. And therefore, what Craig is doing is -- he doesn't realize it -- he's a social entrepreneur. He is inspiring others to continue to reach out to say to somebody who is lonely, I love you. And I'm afraid this requires a higher power than the federal government to cause somebody to love somebody. (Summit on School Violence, Washington DC, October 10, 2006)

42. We don't believe that freedom is America's gift to the world. We believe freedom is the God Almighty's gift to each and every person in the world. (California, Oct. 15, 2003)

43. I believe that, as I told the Crown Prince, the Almighty God has endowed each individual on the face of the earth with -- that expects each person to be treated with dignity. This is a universal call. (Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, Jun. 3, 2003)

44. All of you -- all in this generation of our military -- have taken up the highest calling of history. You're defending your country, and protecting the innocent from harm. And wherever you go, you carry a message of hope -- a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, "To the captives, 'come out,' -- and to those in darkness, 'be free.' (Aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, a couple of miles away from San Diego May 1, 2003)

45. It's so inspirational to see your courage, as well as to see the great works of our Lord in your heart. (Nashville, Tennessee, Feb. 10, 2003)

46. As Dick mentioned, we mourn the loss of seven brave souls. We learned a lot about them over the last couple of days, and Laura and I learned a lot about their families in Houston, because we met with them. My impressions of the meeting was that there was -- that Almighty God was present in their hearts. (Washington, D.C., Feb. 6, 2003)

47. It's also important for people to know we never seek to impose our culture or our form of government. We just want to live under those universal values, God-given values. (Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2002)

48. Yet we do know that God has placed us together in this moment, to grieve together, to stand together, to serve each other and our country. (Ellis Island, New York, Sep. 11, 2002)

49. The reason I'm -- asked [these AmeriCorps workers] to join us here is because I want you to know, America can be saved one person at a time. (Green Tree, Pennsylvania, Aug. 5, 2002)

50. Government can hand out money, but it cannot put hope into people's hearts. It cannot put faith into people's lives. (West Ashley High School, Charleston, South Carolina, Jul. 29, 2002)

Some of those quotes are more interesting and relevant than others, of course. Two points:

(1) Bush often acknowledges that people have the right not to believe in or worship any God. That's better than his father, who thought that atheists weren't really citizens. Yet he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state: he gladly uses government to promote religion with faith-based programs and openly governs according to his religious faith.

(2) One particular instance of that governance by religion is Bush's view that God wants freedom for all the people of the world, not just America. That's a basic motivation for his foreign policy, not only his wars of "liberation" in Afghanistan and Iraq but also his push for democratic elections even when that puts Islamic totalitarians in power. Given the religious foundations of those policies, it's no wonder that the resulting disasters didn't dissuade him. (The 2006 election of the Democrats did result in a shift in policy, presumably because that election reflected God's will.

Read more...

Yaron Brook Profiled in OC Register

Yaron Brook was profiled in Tuesday's Orange County Register: Atlas came to Irvine: Ex-socialist runs Ayn Rand Institute. It's a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Read more...

The Wallet Test

This group dropped 100 wallets in a public place (each containing a small amount of cash, a fake $50 gift certificate, and an ID) in front of a hidden camera in order to see who would keep the wallet and who would return it. They then tabulated their results, including a breakdown by age, race, and gender. There's also a FAQ and a short 8-minute video about the project.

They are careful to make the following disclaimer:

Note: It was not the intention of this experiment to make any particular group look bad, reinforce stereotypes nor to further a hidden agenda of any kind. The actions of a few members in a group should not, of course, be used to judge the whole group.

Of course, there's plenty of online discussion, questions, and ranting about the meaning and significance of the results.

For those who care, it is technically a crime to take a lost wallet in Illinois, where the test was performed (720 ILCS 5/16-2 "Theft of Lost or Mislaid Property".) This may or may not be widely known amongst the general population however.

(Via Clicked.)

Read more...

Student Suspended for Advocating Concealed Carry on Campus

Hamline University Student Suspended After Advocating Concealed Carry for Students: School Orders Psychological Evaluation:

Hamline University has suspended a student after he sent an e-mail suggesting that the Virginia Tech massacre might have been stopped if students had been allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Student Troy Scheffler is now required to undergo a mandatory "mental health evaluation" before being allowed to return to school. Scheffler, who was suspended without due process just two days after sending the e-mail, has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

Un-freaking-believable.

Read more...

Ari Armstrong’s Letter to the Editor

Ari Armstrong recently submitted this multiply co-signed letter to the editor to Colorado papers:

Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters

The signatories offer the following announcement as a non-exclusive letter to the editor.

As advocates of individual rights and free markets, we are deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, we also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state. We ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

Signed,

Ari Armstrong, Westminster
Tom Hall, Louisville
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
Paul Hsieh, Sedalia
Mike Williams, Denver
Leonard Peikoff, Colorado Springs
Richard Watts, Hayden
Cara Thompson, Denver
Hannah Krening, Larkspur
Erika Hanson Brown, Denver
Bill Faulkner, Broomfield
Cameron Craig, Denver
Bryan Armentrout, Erie

Ari also wrote up a version for individual voters, with the following note: "Voters have permission to reproduce and distribute the following declaration. The document may be signed by individual voters and sent to the candidates for whom they will have an opportunity to vote. The names and addresses of candidates generally can be found through regional newspapers and Secretaries of State." Those names and addresses can be even more easily found on Congress.org.

Dear Candidate,

I hereby add my name to the following declaration:

As an advocate of individual rights and free markets, I am deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, I also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, I will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state, whether on his or her web page or in direct correspondence. I ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

Signed,

My hearty thanks to Ari for organizing this small effort for the separation of church and state.

Read more...

Actual Infinity?

Of course Objectivists don't believe in an actual infinity. But I am sympathetic to this quote by Albert Einstein:

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Albert Einstein
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

Read more...

Creationist Medicine

Monica recently posted a fantastic Doonesbury cartoon on medicine for the creationist. (Click on the image to get to a more readable version.) It's the only Doonesbury that I've liked -- ever.

Read more...

Craig Biddle to Speak at UCLA

This Thursday, October 11, at 7:00pm, Craig Biddle will be speaking on "Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's Morality of Egoism" at UCLA, Kinsey Pavilion (Knudsen) 1220B.

In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand set forth a new morality, which she called rational egoism. In contrast to altruism--the idea that one should self-sacrificially serve others--rational egoism holds that one should selfishly pursue one's own life-serving values. Against predation--the practice of sacrificing others for one's own ends--Rand's egoism holds that sacrificing others is immoral and impractical. In contrast to hedonism--the idea that pleasure is the standard of value--Rand's egoism holds that the long-range requirements of one's life and happiness constitute the standard of value. And against moral relativism--the notion that "anything goes"--Rand's egoism holds that morality is absolute: Nothing "goes" except that which promotes one's life while respecting the rights of others.

Rand's egoism is a system of observation-based principles regarding the requirements of human life, personal happiness, social harmony, and political freedom. In this talk, celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Atlas Shrugged, Craig Biddle presents the basic principles of rational egoism, contrasts them with the alternatives, and shows why everyone who wants to live happily and freely needs to understand and embrace them.

Craig Biddle is the editor and publisher of The Objective Standard and the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. He is currently writing a book on the principles of rational thinking and the fallacies that are violations of those principles. In addition to writing, he lectures and teaches workshops on ethical and epistemological issues from an Objectivist perspective. He has spoken at Tufts, Johns Hopkins, NYU, and Lawrence University, among others.

More information is available on the LOGIC website.

Craig Biddle is an excellent speaker, so I definitely recommend his lectures.

Read more...

You’ve Come a Long Way, Computer User

Wow: We've come a long way since the original Macintosh User Manual. The explanations of basic computer functions is particularly fascinating: it shows how much we take for granted today. My favorite explanation is the analogy of the finder to "a central hallway in the Macintosh house." The manual even has a drawing! (See the final image in the post.)

Read more...

Intelligent Delivery

First, Intelligent Design was satirized by The Onion's theory of Intelligent Falling. Now it gets even better with this cartoon on Intelligent Delivery. (Apparently, the cartoonist is a rabid leftist egalitarian. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day!)

Read more...

The Ideas of Atlas Shrugged

From ARI:

The Ideas of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged": A Fiftieth Anniversary Exhibit

IRVINE, Calif.--Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" is the subject of a new exhibit to open on October 8, 2007, at the Frances Howard Goldwyn Hollywood Regional Library. Commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the novel's publication, the exhibit is jointly sponsored by the Los Angeles Public Library and the Ayn Rand Institute, and is curated by Jeff Britting, archivist of the Ayn Rand Archives, a special collection of the Ayn Rand Institute. The exhibit will include a reception open to the public on the date of the novel's fiftieth anniversary, October 10, 7 pm, as well as four public talks devoted to the ideas of "Atlas Shrugged" and their contemporary importance.

The exhibit--a sequel to the library's 2006-07 exhibit on Ayn Rand's time in Hollywood--titled "The Ideas of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged,'" once again displays items from the Ayn Rand Archives, including rare and never-before-displayed reproductions of manuscript pages and notes from early drafts of the novel. Also on display will be original promotional materials produced by Random House, including a dollar-sign cigarette; an excerpt from Rand's manuscript for a television miniseries written shortly before her death; and the cover artwork of historic and foreign editions.

Portions of the exhibit text have been extracted from Mr. Britting's illustrated biography, "Ayn Rand" (The Overlook Press, 2005).

In addition to the exhibit, the library will present, free of charge, four Saturday afternoon discussion sessions about the ideas of "Atlas Shrugged" and their relevance to today's world. Hosted by Mr. Britting, this series will feature presentations by speakers from the Ayn Rand Institute:

Oct. 20, 2007, at 3 pm: talk by Mr. Alex Epstein on Capitalism

Nov. 3, 2007, at 3 pm: talk by Dr. Onkar Ghate on Morality

Nov. 17, 2007, at 3 pm: talk by Mr. Elan Journo on Foreign Policy

Dec. 8, 2007, at 3 pm: talk by Dr. Keith Lockitch on Environmentalism

In "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand wrote a philosophic mystery story that she said integrated metaphysics, politics, economics and sex. It also presented for the first time her original philosophic system, later called "Objectivism," a philosophy advocating reason, rational selfishness and laissez-faire capitalism. The theme of "Atlas Shrugged" is "the role of the mind in man's existence," and the novel dramatizes what would happen to the world if the creators withdrew their works. "Atlas Shrugged" became an immediate best-seller, but was so vilified by critics and academics at the time that Ayn Rand realized she would have to become a full-time philosopher in order to defend and spread the philosophy that made her fictional heroes possible.

"Atlas Shrugged" ranks as one of the most influential books of all time, ranking second only to the Bible in a 1991 survey by the Library of Congress. Selling more copies than ever before, it is studied every year by thousands of students and is regularly cited by businessmen, athletes, scholars and politicians as a book that changed their lives. Even though it was written a half-century ago, the ideas in "Atlas Shrugged" are still profoundly relevant to the moral, cultural and political issues we face today. As Ayn Rand herself explained: "My attitude toward my writing is best expressed by a statement of Victor Hugo: 'If a writer wrote merely for his time, I would have to break my pen and throw it away.'"

The exhibit at the Frances Howard Goldwyn Hollywood Regional Library runs through December 11.

Awesome!

Read more...

Learn Fallacies from Overheard in New York

Two rather crude delights from Overheard in New York:

First, a small difference:

Man: I just don't get it! Just last night you were complaining about how you never try anything new, but you feel like you should.

Woman: Ok, well ordering the roast duck is a little different than a threesome, Tim.

--13th & 3rd

Damn those faulty analogies!

Second, too damn perfect:

Guy: I was seeing her for a while, but it just wasn't working out. I guess I'm not over Jessica.

Girl: What?

Guy: What do you mean, what?

Girl: I thought you were gay.

Guy: Oh, because I'm a hairdresser. How original. Just because I'm a hairdresser you think I'm gay.

Girl: No. I thought you were gay because when I stayed at your house four years ago I woke up and saw you fucking Matt in the ass!

Guy: Oh my God. Matt and I have never talked about that night.

--9th & B

I loved the title: "The Fallacy of Insufficient Sample Size." Damn those hasty generalizations!

Read more...

Writing Estimates

Now that I'm writing regularly rather than in frantic fits and starts, I've found myself in trouble due to inaccurate estimates of the time that a given unit of writing will take me to complete. Since I have a hard (albeit self-imposed) deadline of a May 2009 graduation, it's very important for me to budget my writing time well. However, I've found that I'm routinely taking longer than I expect.

Part of the reason is simply that editing my work to my high standard of clarity and accuracy is a slow process. Of course, I could be less fastidious. However, I've found time and again that a failure to do that level of editing creates major stumbling blocks later in the writing since later analyses depend on the quality of earlier analyses. So if I don't edit my work carefully, I'll find myself totally paralyzed by conceptual confusions that I never properly identified and corrected earlier in the writing. That's not good.

Some of the suggestions in this short article are helpful, but I'd be interested in any others that my readers might have.

Since I do now make regular and steady progress in my writing, my next step is probably to accurately measure the rate of my writing by tracking how much work I do in an hour, on average. That will enable me to make far more realistic estimates.

Any other suggestions?

Read more...

Ari Armstrong

Good news: Ari Armstrong of the Colorado Freedom Report is now also blogging at AriArmstrong.com. (He's got news on the possible Serenity sequel!)

Read more...

Farewell My Concubine

Help!

I've watched about an hour of the movie Farewell My Concubine while exercising over the past few days. I'm completely baffled by it. Significant events seem to be happening, but I have almost no clue as to their meaning.

So... for those of you who have watched it to the end... Should I give up now or persevere for another hour and a half?

Read more...

Ayn Rand at UT Austin

Wowee, check out the front page the University of Texas at Austin's College of Liberal Arts. Since that delight will probably disappear from the page sometime soon, here's a screenshot. The tagline of the college is just too perfect: "What starts here changes the world." Let's hope so!

Read more...

Garbage, Courtesy of CNN

I don't think that a single sentence on Ayn Rand in CNN's Mental Floss column is true:

Ayn Rand

The egotist's egotist, author Ayn Rand (born Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum) is the patron saint of Thinking You're Better Than Everybody Else.

Her most famous novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, are massive dramatizations of Objectivism, her self-spun Oscar-the-Grouch philosophy for success. Objectivism champions ego and accomplishment, shuns all religion as folly, and condemns any form of charity or altruism as counterproductive to society.

Rand's novels often focus on protagonists (invariably men) who are shunned by others because of their genius, but then persevere over the foolishness of morons to prove said genius and emerge triumphant.

Not surprisingly, she saw humility as a weakness and regarded laughing at yourself as "spitting in your own face."

So, just how much did Rand believe in her own philosophy? Let's just say a lot. With signature modesty, she ranked herself as the philosophical equal of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

Disgusting. Ignorant. Garbage.

If anyone wants to write up a sentence-by-sentence reply, I'll post it. I'm too overwhelmed by the stench to even try right now.

Read more...

Article Request

Does anyone have the PDF of Harry Binswanger's article "Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation" as published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes that they might be able to e-mail me? I have the Second Renaissance reprint, but I should cite the pagination from the original publication for my dissertation.

If you're an academic, you might check to see whether you have access to online archive for that issue. The PDF of that article is online, but CU Boulder's subscription stops two years short of that particular issue. Boo hoo!

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Update #1: Thanks to two helpful souls, I now have the article in question. Hooray!

Update #2: In case anyone else cares, the typesetting of the two versions is identical, so to get the proper page numbers for the jounal, you just need to renumber the Second Renaissance pamphlet from 154-178.

Read more...

Where There's Smoke, There's the Nanny State

Don Watkins, former NoodleFood blogger, has published his first op-ed with ARI: Anti-Smoking Paternalism: A Cancer on American Liberty. Take a peek:

Across the country, state and local governments are banning smoking on private property, including bars, restaurants, and office buildings. This is just the latest step in the government's war on smoking--a coercive campaign that includes massive taxes on cigarettes, advertising bans, and endless multi-billion dollar lawsuits against tobacco companies. This war is infecting America with a political disease far worse than any health risk caused by smoking; it is destroying our freedom to make our own judgments and choices.

According to the anti-smoking movement, restricting people's freedom to smoke is justified by the necessity of combating the "epidemic" of smoking-related disease and death. Cigarettes, we are told, kill hundreds of thousands of helplessly addicted victims a year, and expose countless millions to unwanted and unhealthy secondhand smoke. Smoking, the anti-smoking movement says, in effect, is a plague, whose ravages can only be combated through drastic government action.

But smoking is not some infectious disease that must be quarantined and destroyed by the government. Smoking is a voluntary activity that every individual is free to choose to abstain from (including by avoiding restaurants and other private establishments that permit smoking). And, contrary to those who regard any smoking as irrational on its face, cigarettes are a potential value that each individual must assess for himself. Of course, smoking can be harmful--in certain quantities, over a certain period of time, it can be habit forming and lead to disease or death. But many individuals understandably regard the risks of smoking as minimal if one smokes relatively infrequently, and they see smoking as offering definite value, such as physical pleasure.

Are they right? Can it be a value to smoke cigarettes--and if so, in what quantity? This is the sort of judgment that properly belongs to every individual, based on his assessment of the evidence concerning smoking's benefits and risks, and taking into account his particular circumstances (age, family history, profession, tastes, etc.). If others believe the smoker is making a mistake, they are free to try to persuade him of their viewpoint. But they should not be free to dictate his decision on whether and to what extent to smoke, any more than they should be able to dictate his decision on whether and to what extent to drink alcohol or play poker. The fact that some individuals will smoke themselves into an early grave is no more justification for banning smoking than that the existence of alcoholics is grounds for prohibiting you from enjoying a drink at dinner.

Implicit in the war on smoking, however, is the view that the government must dictate the individual's decisions with regard to smoking, because he is incapable of making them rationally. To the extent the anti-smoking movement succeeds in wielding the power of government coercion to impose on Americans its blanket opposition to smoking, it is entrenching paternalism: the view that individuals are incompetent to run their own lives, and thus require a nanny-state to control every aspect of those lives.

This state is well on its way: from trans-fat bans to bicycle helmet laws to prohibitions on gambling, the government is increasingly abridging our freedom on the grounds that we are not competent to make rational decisions in these areas--just as it has long done by paternalistically dictating how we plan for retirement (Social Security) or what medicines we may take (the FDA).

Indeed, one of the main arguments used to bolster the anti-smoking agenda is the claim that smokers impose "social costs" on non-smokers, such as smoking-related medical expenses--an argument that perversely uses an injustice created by paternalism to support its expansion. The only reason non-smokers today are forced to foot the medical bills of smokers is that our government has virtually taken over the field of medicine, in order to relieve us inept Americans of the freedom to manage our own health care, and bear the costs of our own choices.

But contrary to paternalism, we are not congenitally irrational misfits. We are thinking beings for whom it is both possible and necessary to rationally judge which courses of action will serve our interests. The consequences of ignoring this fact range from denying us legitimate pleasures to literally killing us: from the healthy 26-year-old unable to enjoy a trans-fatty food, to the 75-year-old man unable to take an unapproved, experimental drug without which he will certainly die.

By employing government coercion to deprive us of the freedom to judge for ourselves what we inhale or consume, the anti-smoking movement has become an enemy, not an ally, in the quest for health and happiness.

Don Watkins is a writer and research coordinator at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

I've missed Don's blogging, so I hope to see more writings by him from ARI.

Read more...

Slutty Little Bunny

In our house, the kitties are often called "fluffy little bunnies." Sometimes, they're called "slutty little bunnies," like when do this:



Oh, what a rubbable belly Elliot has!

Read more...

The Opposite of Googling for Objectivism

This is the latest incarnation of an email I've sent to a few friends to give some context and offer helpful leads in their investigations. Feel free to copy or adapt it for your own use!

Hi, Anonymized. You mentioned that you were looking around the web for information on Objectivism and Rand. Heh, that should prove entertaining: there are a lot of cranks and confusions to get tangled up in. So now I feel compelled to defend the honor by offering a few carefully-selected links for your propagandistic enjoyment. :^)

Seriously, though, it is a large topic and an extremely challenging one to assess fairly. She and her philosophy are recent enough that the signal-to-noise ratio regarding them are pretty horrid compared to the (still not exactly sterling) levels found with centuries-dead philosophers and their ideas -- and this goes for both detractors and defenders. With that warning, though, it isn't hopeless. Wikipedia, for example, is really weak in the more detailed articles, but the top-level entries for Rand, Objectivism, and the Objectivist movement are pretty reasonable to check out (with an extra dash of salt, of course).

However, if you want a clear overview from which to form your own judgment, I would suggest checking out some material from Rand herself, along with the top specialists in Objectivism. Summaries and explanations for any topic can range from elevator-pitch length, to a couple minutes for a hallway appetizer, all the way up to full volumes on the subject and then technical treatises on ever-narrower aspects of it. Probably the most productive way to approach a vast topic like this would be to begin with the anchor of an "elevator summary" and then spiral over the system at increasing levels of detail and completeness, amplifying on and further integrating what you've seen with each pass.

So with that path in mind, here is the best single-sentence summary of Objectivism I know of. It is by Rand, from an about-the-author appendix to her epic novel Atlas Shrugged, and while it is extremely broad, it really does nail the fundamental spirit of the system:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Then spiraling over that same domain again but in a different and more detailed way, there is a little single-page summary of the essentials of Objectivism by her, and the people at the Ayn Rand Institute also have a one-page discussion of what is important and distinctive about the philosophy.

Slicing through from another direction, here is Dr. Onkar Ghate, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, with a very nice series of bite-sized articles (one, two, three, and four) introducing people to the spirit of Objectivism as a moral philosophy for human life and happiness here on earth.

Taking it up another notch, you might enjoy this nice 11-page summary of the philosophy that was written for a general audience. It is from an excellent quarterly journal of culture and politics that presents analyses from an Objectivist perspective (the editor Craig Biddle wrote it to introduce and set some context for the journal).

Shorter and more technical, but probably the most impressive link I have on this front is a brief overview of Rand and Objectivism (a mere 2500 words), authored by Greg Salmieri and Dr. Allan Gotthelf for a dictionary of modern philosophers. They accomplished so much in so little space, and so brilliantly -- reading it feels almost like reading a poem.

Finally, there is this brief summary in about ten pages (fairly dense with more references to the history of philosophy) by Rand's top student, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, taken from the appendix of his first book. (His second book is a wonderful summary 50 times as long. :^)

Those are still only a taste, of course, and would (should!) leave lots of questions and concerns to be explored. The next pass in the spiral might best involve actually going through a book by Rand herself. A friend who went off to Chicago a few years back dropped me a note out of the blue asking for a lead on that, so I'll recycle my response below.

Happy exploring,
Greg

> I've never read Rand, but would like to. Where do you suggest I start?

How cool. Hmm, it depends a bit on your purposes. You didn't specify fiction or nonfiction, or ask about any particular branch or domain in philosophy (e.g., theory of knowledge, ethics, politics, aesthetics), so I'll stay away from purely nonfiction works that are more focused or dry and technical. That leads us to either of two great places to start, based on time and tastes:

1. The Ayn Rand Reader (500 pages, 194k words, about $14)

In the introduction, co-editor Leonard Peikoff talks about how Rand has a lot of published material and many time-pressed readers wouldn't know where to begin or how to select a representative sample. "The present book is designed to meet these needs. ... this anthology is intended as an entree for those who know little or nothing about her. Each of her four novels and [her nonfiction work in] every branch of philosophy are represented within its pages, even if only in brief excerpts. Whoever finishes the book, therefore, can say in all conscience that he knows the essence of [Rand] -- and that he knows it by means of actually having read her." (Please be careful, though: this book contains major spoilers and you'll seriously miss out if you read Rand's novels some day.)

2. Atlas Shrugged (1100 pages, 561k words, about $12 for the size that doesn't require a magnifying glass)

Rand's artistic and philosophic magnum opus, a novel that has rightfully earned a place in the Western canon. It is no hyperbolic exaggeration to call this an innovative and gripping story that both embodies and presents an entire, revolutionary system of thought in an astonishing display of literary and philosophic integration. As far as I know, that feat is unprecedented in the history of literature, and it would be impressive independent of whether or not the ideas made any sense at all. What's over the top from my perspective is that in almost two decades of poking and prodding and holding her ideas up to the harshest scrutiny I can find in myself or others, I have yet to discover an essential that she didn't nail. The chick was that good.

While you are waiting for one of those meaty tomes to arrive, you could entertain yourself with her little blockbuster gem of a novella, Anthem, written a decade before another big dystopian novel, Orwell's 1984. It is still in print and selling well, but also out of copyright and available on the web, and you could probably read the whole thing in about two hours. While stylistically unlike anything else by Rand, I can see why she described it as dear to her spiritually, a poem, a hymn.

Updates: a few tweaks; added Onkar's New Statesman article series (HT: Ergo); added spoiler disclaimer on the Reader (HT: Aeon)

Read more...

Baseball

Augh! Now that the delightfully bone-crushing New England/Cincinnati football game is over, Paul is forcing me to watch the end of the Rockies/Padres game. (Okay, so he asked to watch it and I changed the channel.)

Baseball is soooooo boring! All the action of hours of a game could be compressed into about five minutes. It's also totally gross with all the spit-spit-spitting and scratching of unmentionables. Heck, in light of all the overhanging bellies, I'm thinking that it's as much of a real sport as poker.

*ducks and runs away from all the scary people with baseball bats*

Read more...

The Face of Theocracy

I'm horrified but not surprised by this news. The soon-to-be-retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently clarified his view of gays in the military by asserting that any homosexual with a sex life should be banned from the military because homosexual activity is contrary to God's law.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, caused a stir at a Senate hearing this week when he repeated his view that gay sex is immoral and should not be condoned by the military.

Pace, who retires next week, said he was seeking to clarify similar remarks he made in spring, which he said were misreported. "Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," he told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing Wednesday focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.

"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."

...Pace noted that the U.S. Military Code of Justice prohibits homosexual activity as well as adultery.

Folks, that's outright theocracy: government policy at the highest level is determined by appeal to Scripture.

Notably, the secular argument against allowing gays to serve in the military has been pretty thoroughly destroyed by the experience of Britain, which was forced to permit gays in the military by order of the European courts. None of the predicted disasters have occurred; all has gone very smoothly.

Read more...