The Latest Smear

While I have recently been quoted with a somewhat favorable view of the size of Commentary Magazine vs. the size of all other Objectivist publications so far published, I want to make sure that everybody reading this blog understands I am in no way endorsing the content of Commentary which is decidedly mixed and can be quite awful.

A recent example of the latter is found in an article in the September 2005 issue entitled "Who Needs Ayn Rand?" by Algis Valiunas. (The article is available on the Commentary web site, as well as on amazon.com but a fee is required to read it. It may also of course be found in the print version of the issue in various bookstores). The short summary of the article below its title on the cover gives a clear indication that the author does not intend the question to be in the same vein as Ayn Rand's own book Philosophy: Who Needs it. It states that "[t]he work of the high priestess of reason continues to sell, but—with reason—her centenary has gone uncelebrated." Another hint of the author's attitude is that early in the article he writes that "Whittaker Chambers, in Buckley’s National Review,wrote a definitive takedown of her ideas."

Mr. Valiunas is of course referring to the so-called "review" of Atlas Shrugged published, as he mentions, in William F. Buckley's National Review. Enough has been written about Mr. Chamber's particular emotional outburst so I that will focus on the rest of the problems with Mr. Valiunas's article.

And there are numerous problems. To begin with it seems that in preparing this article Valiunas confined himself to three major sources: Barbara Branden's long discredited biography The Passion of Ayn Rand, and Ayn Rand's two major novel's, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. The result is that he makes several factual errors that could easily have been corrected if he had spent the time doing a little more research.

Valiunas repeats Branden's mistaken notion of how Ayn Rand chose her name:

It was an unexpected letter from emigrant relatives who had settled in Chicago that propelled her westward like destiny’s guiding hand. Having inveigled an invitation to visit for six months, she embarked on English lessons, planning to write screenplays that would make her name and her fortune. In January 1926 she was off, with 50 dollars, a Remington-Rand typewriter, and a new name to go with her new country: Ayn Rosenbaum,soon to be further revised in the typewriter’s honor.

As David Hayes points out:

Barbara Branden’s 1986 biography of Ayn Rand has Alice Rosenbaum choosing the name “Ayn Rand” while in Chicago in 1926 and never telling her family in Russia about the new name. (pg. 71) However, letters from Rand’s family in Russia refer to the new name. Further, one such letter had been mailed from Russia before the family had yet received any mail from Ayn. Obviously, she had chosen the name before leaving and had told them what it would be. A 1926 letter by Ayn’s sister Nora with Nora’s hand-drawn illustration of the name “Ayn Rand” in theatrical lights, is reprinted in Michael Paxton’s companion book to his film Ayn Rand: a Sense of Life (pg. 71, remarkably the same page number as the Branden book).

Valiunas also seems to be confused about the Ayn Rand Institute's (ARI) history since he believes that:

Having realized her ambition as a novelist, Rand turned to philosophical essays detailing her Objectivist philosophy. These, too, sold phenomenally well. Her educational foundation, the Ayn Rand Institute, helped spread the word, as did her weekly column in the Los AngelesTimes explaining the news from an Objectivist standpoint.

As can be gleaned from checking the ARI's website, the Institute was established 1985, three years after Ayn Rand's death. Mr. Valiunas probably means the Nathaniel Branden Institute, but I am not convinced this is an innocent error. It seems to tie in too well with Valiunas's attempts to create an image of Ayn Rand as the narcissistic egotist.

This is evident when earlier he describes her transition to atheism thus:

She adored mathematics and logic, and at age fifteen she wrote in her diary: “Today, I decided to be an atheist.” Being anyone’s inferior was unthinkable to her, so God could not possibly exist.

I don't know if in the last sentence Valiunas is making an extemporaneous comment, or relying on Branden's biography, but I recall in the excellent biographical movie Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, a somewhat different reason was given. Namely, that it was unthinkable to her that there was something above Man, not her specifically. Put this way, it becomes a much more reasonable and less narcissistic proposition.

After Valiunas summarizes more or less accurately the plots of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, starts to evaluate Rand more explicitly.

What is one to make of it all? In Rand, soundness and charlatanry commingle. In the end, charlatanry prevails.
Freedom, individuality, achievement, reason: Rand takes these and other fine ideas and pursues them to the limits of sanity.
...
Having learned the lessons of socialist dystopia on her own body, she embraces a utopian fantasy of her own: only mingy compromise with collectivism stands in the way of the society without flaw, in which heroic individuals, loosed from Judeo- Christian tyranny with its insufferable God and foul altruism, will create the capitalist paradise. In her passion to reshape the world in accordance with her idea, Rand begins to sound like the tyrants she hates. Her capitalist revolutionaries speak of their opponents as “subhuman creatures,” “looting lice.” Galt’s radio address to the nation—he has commandeered the airwaves by some electronic magic—is positively Castrolike in its mad zealotry, running to over 50 pages and unfolding every half-truth and alluring lunacy Rand ever entertained.

I always find it amusing to see Conservatives, otherwise so insistent on the need for morality, belittle and dismiss any genuine example of passionate moral evaluation. Apparently, Rand through Galt should have been more diplomatic when discussing the people who in the story are tearing the country apart and leading to the downfall of civilization. I'm reminded of a line from the movie Robocop 2, in which, when it is pointed out to the mayor that the people with whom he wants to bargain are criminals, cries out: "Why are you labeling people?" In Galt's speech, Rand lays out the fundamentals of her philosophy, including her understanding of the nature and origin of morality. That she then proceeds to call a spade, a spade should surprise no one.

But of course, the real enemy for Conservatives is not a rational morality but reason as such:

Everything in Rand’s thought depends on her faith in reason, her conviction that any question has a clear and definitive answer. This unlimited faith in reason damages her as a novelist—there are no mysteries in her world, including no mysteries of human character—and also severely limited her as a moralist and undid her as a woman.

"Faith in reason" -- a common refrain among Conservatives. But one that, if properly understood, is clearly a contradiction. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence or in presence of opposing evidence. Reason, as Ayn Rand put it, is "the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." To base one's belief on the identification and integration of factual evidence is clearly the opposite of faith, which disregards such evidence. But what is the basis for accepting reason in the first place you may ask? Isn't the acceptance of the validity of reason itself an act of faith? These questions betray an ignorance some of the essentials of metaphysics and epistemology. The metaphysical essential relevant to reason is the axiom of the law of identity or "A is A". Its epistemological implementation is the law of non-contradiction that is A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same respect, which is the basic law of logic. Identity is a basic axiom of metaphysics and as such it is a fundamental identification of a basic fact of reality that all knowledge depends on. Thus, logic, which is the method of reason, is simply an epistemological recognition of the nature of reality. If one wants to succeed in reality, one must follow reason because only by following reason can one be in accord with the basic law of reality, the law of identity.

The last sentence of the previous quote is of course a reference to Ayn Rand's unfortunate affair with Nathaniel Branden. Valiunas proceeds to regurgitate the usual distortions from the Branden biography. One wishes in vain that he had taken a look at James S. Valliant's riveting The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, a book that gives quite a different view of some of the events that Valiunas describes. For example, Valiunas describes that the affair's result was that the "Brandens’ marriage collapsed and Rand’s husband swirled down the alcoholic drain." In his book, Valliant challenges both of these claims. He points out that both Barbara and Nathaniel Branden each had secret affairs from each other (the Rand-Branden relationship had been open and both spouses were consulted and gave their approval before any intimacy had been attempted) and that their marriage collapse was more likely a result of these dishonest dealings than the Rand-Branden affair. With respect to Frank O'Connor, Ayn Rand's husband, Valliant shows there is little real evidence to support the Branden's claim that he became an alcoholic.

Valliant also disproves conclusively the notion that Valiunas repeats, that as a result of discovering that Branden had a secret affair with a younger woman, "Rand nearly went insane in her jealousy." Valliant shows by examining Ayn Rand's personal notes at the time that Ayn Rand had long since given up on an intimate relationship with Branden and in fact was giving Branden, at his urging, psychotherapy sessions, in which she was trying to help him deal with his problems. In those sessions Nathaniel Branden continued to viciously lie to Ayn Rand (with the full knowledge of Barbara Branden) about his present feelings for her, as well as his secret affair with another young female student. It becomes clear on reading Ayn Rand's notes that the reason for Ayn Rand's complete break with Nathaniel Branden was not "insane jealousy" but the realization that Branden had been dishonest with her for years and thus on a scale she could hardly believe of someone whom she once referred to as her intellectual heir. Therefore, it ought to be no surprise that Branden's dishonesty and hypocrisy led Ayn Rand, upon her discovery of them, to completely disassociate him from herself and her philosophy, which considers these traits major vices. But one might mention that all of Branden's articles written during his association with Ayn Rand remain in Ayn Rand's books. Contrary to the implications of Valiunas, Ayn Rand did not rewrite history. The idea that Rand "destroyed [Branden's] professional reputation" is a myth. First of all, Branden is responsible for any destruction of his reputation via his own actions. Second, all Rand did was to severe the parasitical business relationship that Branden had developed with respect to Ayn Rand's ideas. Nothing less could be expected.

The fact is that Ayn Rand did not relish being the leader of an intellectual movement. That is why there was no Ayn Rand Institute during her lifetime, only a Nathaniel Branden Institute. While obviously she believed in the truth and importance of her ideas, as Leonard Peikoff has pointed out, she always wished there was a modern day Aristotle that would take her place. As a rational egoist she certainly believed in her own value but she was not a narcissist and did not run a cult. Unfortunately, with talent and fame came many admirers and fans, many of whom completely fail to understand and/or integrate her radical ideas. Among them was the biggest fraud Ayn Rand had encountered in her life but unfortunately she did not discover it for many years.

It really is a profound injustice that intellectuals continue to distort Ayn Rand's ideas and personal history. However, it is also a sign that Ayn Rand can no longer be ignored as she used to be. As the number of Objectivist intellectuals increases it will be come increasingly difficult to ignore Ayn Rand's ideas and eventually, I expect, to deny their truth. That is a time worth waiting for.

Science News & Controversy

There is a story in today's New Scientist about the advantages of embryonic stem cells (ESC) over adult stem cell in a particular research endeavor.

Embryonic stem cells from mice can patch up damaged heart muscle in sheep. With hopes of using less controversial, adult-derived stem cells now appearing shaky, the results could pave the way for effective treatments for heart disease in people.

“It’s clear now that adult stem cells are unable to become myocardial [heart muscle] cells,” says co-author Michel Puceat at the Macromolecular Biochemistry Research Centre in Montpellier, France. “This would have been the best cell population, because they come from the patient, but there is no doubt that embryonic stem cells are much better.”

Some critics of ESC research funding continue to insist that "[t]he case against ESCs is scientific" but it seems there appears to be more and more science to contradict them.

Of course, I too am a "critic" of ESC, just as I am a critic of all government funded scientific research. Scientific research is not a proper function of the government (except possibly indirectly for war and defense purposes). The government is the agency that has a legal monopoly of force in a geographic area. Force and mind are opposites. It's really no wonder that government funded science is highly politized and thus highly suspect. Nevertheless, while we have government funded science it behooves us to disregard religious (and thus irrational) objections to specific research proposals. We may be far from having complete separation of state and science but at least the separation of state and church ought to be intact.
**
Another news report from New Scientist discusses a recent paper in Science magazine which claims a connection between global warming and increasingly frequent stronger hurricanes.

A massive global increase in the number of strong hurricanes over the past 35 years is being blamed on global warming, by the most detailed study yet. The US scientists warn that Katrina-strength hurricanes could become the norm.

Dr. Patrick Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia has written a critique of the paper that looks quite damning to my eyes. It's true that the data the Science paper looked at, which used satellite data from 1970 shows the trend and correlation identified as can be seen from the graph below.

Figure 1. (A) the total number of category 1 storms (blue curve), the sum of categories 2 and 3 (green), and the sum of categories 4 and 5 (red) in 5-year periods. The black curve is the maximum wind speed observed globally. (B) Same as (A), except that the numbers are presented as a percentage of the total annual storm count. (taken from Dr. Michaels article -- click on graphs to see original size image [GR])

Unfortunately for the Science paper's authors, Dr. Michaels points out that the correlation appears to break down when earlier data is added to the picture.

Figure 2. Same as Figure 1, except for the analysis is for only the North Atlantic basin and begins in 1945. (taken from Dr. Michaels article -- click on graphs to see original size image [GR])

As Dr. Michaels points out:

The conclusion many draw from papers such as these is that anthropogenic global warming from the burning of fossil fuels by humans is causing more lethal storms. A closer look, though, reveals not human actions but rather natural cycles are the primary cause.

And he concludes:

While the impacts of the currently active hurricane period are being felt especially hard in the United States, there remains no scientific proof that human contributions to an enhanced greenhouse effect are the root cause.

Today's Commentary (part 2)

On the domestic front there was an interesting editorial in today's Washington Post about the recent Vioxx lawsuit. The editorial describes the lack of science behind the recent judgment:

Unfortunately for Merck, scientific facts didn't play much of a role in the first Vioxx trial, which ended on Aug. 19. The Texas jury in that case awarded $253.4 million to the widow of a man who died of a heart attack triggered by arrhythmia, which is not a condition Vioxx has been proven to cause. The jury, declaring that it wished to "send a message" to Merck, decided to make an enormous symbolic award anyway. Besides, said one juror afterward, the medical evidence was confusing: "We didn't know what the heck they were talking about." Because Texas law limits the size of jury awards, the final cost to Merck is likely to be closer to $2 million. But the precedent set by the jury is ominous. Merck is facing about 5,000 similar lawsuits. If every one of those costs the company $2 million, the total price will come to $10 billion -- if, of course, a company called Merck is still around to pay it.

While the state of willful scientific ignorance in this country is depressing, it's certainly nice to see the generally liberal Washington Post take what amounts to a pro-business stance. The editorial proceeds to argue that since Merck, for the most part, practiced due diligence by going through the regulatory process and by pulling the drug off the market they don't deserve this kind of "disproportionate financial punishment." The Washington Post also points correctly to the consequences for consumers should the number of such lawsuits increase:

In the long term, using the courts to "send a message" to Merck isn't going to help consumers. If the result is an even more cautious FDA approval system and a more cautious pharmaceutical industry, that will keep innovative drugs off the market for much longer. More people will die waiting for new treatments. The cost of producing new drugs will rise dramatically. Already, there are whole areas of medicine -- women's health during pregnancy, for example -- that are made so risky by liability issues that companies may stop doing research in them.

This is good as far as it goes. But we can take the point to its logical conclusion. The FDA as such represents a formidable barrier to innovation, not to mention a violation of the rights of both pharmaceutical companies and individuals to trade freely without government interference. A company, particularly a company manufacturing drugs on which the life or death of its customers may depend, must build a reputation for quality. It is the importance of that reputation to the company that will best protect consumers, not government force.

Today's Commentary (part 1)

There seems to be quite a bit of interesting things to comment on today. Let's start with the inevitably depressing results of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza which are detailed by the insightful Caroline Click in the Jerusalem Post (free registration may be required) and on the Center for Security Policy web site. As Glick describes it:

In Gaza, now empty of all Jewish presence, the Palestinians lost no time in taking charge of events in their own special way. First came the firebombing of the synagogues. We were asked indignantly by such paragons of virtue as PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas, "Well, what did you expect to happen?" As if it should go without saying that the Palestinians will exploit any opportunity to show us their contempt for all things Jewish.

After the firebombing came the looting of the destroyed Jewish communities. Then came the looting of the hothouses which had been bought for the Palestinians by wealthy Jews in the US who decided to buy them so that the Palestinians could reap what their expelled Israeli brethren had sown.

Sometime between destroying the abandoned synagogues, looting the destroyed Jewish villages, tearing apart the hothouses, throwing grenades at IDF patrols guarding Moshav Netiv Ha'asara and shooting mortars at Sderot, the Palestinians discovered Egypt. At the direction of Hamas, and with the help of PA militias and Egyptian soldiers, thousands of Palestinians crossed the wall separating Palestinian Rafah from Egyptian Rafah. Among the merrymakers, unknown numbers of terrorists crossed back and forth shuttling arms and reinforcements into Gaza in unknown quantities. IDF commanders looked on, and impotently stated that there is a high probability that al-Qaida operatives are among the newcomers. Oh well.

In addition we have this piece from World Tribune.com where the point about Egypt is elaborated:

TEL AVIV — Israeli military sources said hundreds of weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank rockets and bomb components, have been smuggled over the last three days from the Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip.

The sources said Palestinian insurgents brought the equipment from Egypt in wake of the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

So far, more than 10,000 Palestinians have crossed the Gaza border and made their way to towns in eastern and northern Sinai. The sources said they included hundreds of operatives from Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, some of whom directed the flow of Palestinians into Sinai.

It is really quite difficult to see what potential long term gains Israel achieved with the so-called "disengagement". It seems quite clearly to be a disaster and, as all of us who opposed this move pointed out, a completely predictable one.

Ms. Glick also describes the outrageous attempt to criminalize Israel's conduct of war:

On Tuesday, Maj. Gen. (res.) Doron Almog tried to go to London. But once his El Al plane landed he was alerted by the Israeli embassy that if he alighted at Heathrow he would likely be arrested. An anti-Zionist British-Israeli "human rights" lawyer by the name of Daniel Machover, in cooperation with the Israeli group Yesh Gvul, filed a lawsuit against Almog charging him with war crimes in a British court. So alerted, Almog stayed on the plane and went home.

Triumphant, Yesh Gvul's spokesmen in Israel announced that in addition to Almog, they were in the midst of filing complaints for war crimes with British courts against eight other senior IDF commanders. Among them are former chief of staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon and current Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz. Hearing this, Ya'alon cancelled his plan to fly to London next week.

And many of you probably thought that the left was bad in the US. Fortunately, the Almog arrest warrant was canceled; unfortunately, it was canceled "on technical and procedural grounds and it did not imply that Almog or others are immune from future legal proceedings in Britain." This is a very ominous development and not just for Israel.

I'll continue my commentary in a separate post.

Around the Web

This will hopefully one day be a military transport. To find out more click here.
**
Elizabeth M. Whelan of the American Council on Science and Health had a torturous encounter with a person of hate. Ignorance of pharmaceutical companies is unfortunately far too prevalent.
**
Update 9/15/2005 -- fixed link to Walrus.

Four Years After 9/11 -- The Pessimistic View

Two interesting articles on the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks have recently appeared and are available on the web. Both paint a rather pessimistic picture of the current war effort. Mark Danner writing in this past weekend's New York Times Magazine writes from what might be called a center-left perspective in his article Taking Stock of the Forever War, while Steven M. Warshawsky talks about the The Bush Doctrine, R.I.P. at RealClearPolitics.com (hat tip Gus Van Horn) attacking Bush from the right. As I am myself in a pessimistic frame of mind regarding the progress of this war I found much to agree with in both articles but also some disagreements.

Both Danner and Warshawsky point to reasons for disappointment in the present war effort. Let's look at some key excerpts from Danner first:

Today marks four years of war. Four years after the attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S. troops ruled unchallenged in Japan and Germany. During those 48 months, Americans created an unmatched machine of war and decisively defeated two great enemies.
...
Four years after the collapse of the towers, evil is still with us and so is terrorism. Terrorists have staged spectacular attacks, killing thousands, in Tunisia, Bali, Mombasa, Riyadh, Istanbul, Casablanca, Jakarta, Madrid, Sharm el Sheik and London, to name only the best known. Last year, they mounted 651 "significant terrorist attacks," triple the year before and the highest since the State Department started gathering figures two decades ago. One hundred ninety-eight of these came in Iraq, Bush's "central front of the war on terror" - nine times the year before. And this does not include the hundreds of attacks on U.S. troops. It is in Iraq, which was to serve as the first step in the "democratization of the Middle East," that insurgents have taken terrorism to a new level, killing well over 4,000 people since April in Baghdad alone; in May, Iraq suffered 90 suicide-bombings. Perhaps the "shining example of democracy" that the administration promised will someday come, but for now Iraq has become a grotesque advertisement for the power and efficacy of terror.

This is the picture we have seen in the news over the last four years. Perhaps I have not read enough of Chrenkoff's Good News from Iraq but that's pretty much my understanding of the situation as well. Meanwhile, Warshawsky takes the President to task for defaulting on his own doctrine:

In his recent speeches about the war on terror, President Bush has unmistakably backed away from the aggressively martial rhetoric he used after 9/11. He no longer speaks in terms of destroying “every terrorist group of global reach.” Or “pursuing nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.” Or “confronting the worst threats before they emerge.” The Bush Doctrine, as originally understood, is a dead letter. All the talk now is about Iraq, and why we should remain in Iraq despite a rising death toll that has eroded public support for the war. Indeed, Bush’s last four major statements on the war – his 2005 State of the Union address, his speech to the troops at Fort Hood in April 2005, his graduation speech at the Naval Academy in May 2005, and his national address from Fort Bragg in June 2005 – were devoted almost exclusively to making the case for remaining in Iraq. While I agree with the President on this issue, the fact remains that this is not the “war on terror” he spoke about after 9/11.

It is indeed very frustrating for those of us who have supported President Bush in the last election over the vocal opposition of the likes of Leonard Peikoff, Scott Holleran, Craig Biddle and others.

In the end Danner's criticism fails as he seems to think by adopting "rollback" rather than "containment" as our policy we have done too much already, and as a result are facing an continuously replenished supply of fanatics ready kill and be killed. But there is an alternative to this depressing scenario and that is to fight a real war, the kind of war hinted at by Bush in his early statements that Warshawsky quotes:

The second principle underlying the Bush Doctrine is that our enemy in this war is not just the “radical network of terrorists,” but “every government that supports them.” As Bush put it in his statement to the nation on 9/11:

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

and

The President elaborated on the vital importance of this element of his anti-terror strategy in his State of the Union address in January 2002:

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

Sadly, as Warshawsky points out, the President seems to have abandoned his own policies or perhaps we read too much into them in the first place.

Men vs. Women at Work

A fascinating op-ed in today's NewYork Times describes in some detail the reasons for the so-called "wage gap" between men and women. The author, Warren Farrell, wrote the book Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap - and What Women Can Do About It. Here are some choice excerpts:

When I was on the board of the National Organization for Women in New York City, I blamed discrimination for that gap. Then I asked myself, "If an employer has to pay a man one dollar for the same work a woman would do for 76 cents, why would anyone hire a man?"
...
After years of research, I discovered 25 differences in the work-life choices of men and women. All 25 lead to men earning more money, but to women having better lives.
...
Is the pay gap, then, about the different choices of men and women? Not quite. It's about parents' choices. Women who have never been married and are childless earn 117 percent of their childless male counterparts. (This comparison controls for education, hours worked and age.) Their decisions are more like married men's, and never-married men's decisions are more like women's in general (careers in arts, no weekend work, etc.)
...
Don't women, though, earn less than men in the same job? Yes and no. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics lumps together all medical doctors. Men are more likely to be surgeons (versus general practitioners) and work in private practice for hours that are longer and less predictable, and for more years. In brief, the same job is not the same. Are these women's choices? When I taught at a medical school, I saw that even my first-year female students eyed specialties with fewer and more predictable hours.

This article ought to be read by all who think that the wage gap derives from some kind of flaw in capitalism.

Brief Note

Scott Holleran's latest column talks about New Orleans and the upcoming Atlas Shrugged movie. Well worth checking out. As a great fan of the book, I can't help looking forward to the movie, even if it is quite likely that I will be disappointed. Nevertheless, it will be nice if the movie (or TV mini-series -- no decision on that has been made) is finally made and perhaps some further publicity for the book results.

Today's Briefing

My heart goes out to the people of New Orleans and surrounding areas suffering from the devastation wrought by hurricane Katrina. A list of links for aid donations can be found on Glenn Reynold's blog here. Also, blogger Gus Van Horn is asking his readers to donate to the Armed Forces Retirement Home, "whose facility in Gulfport, Mississippi took severe damage from the storm." I recommend donating through your employer if they have a matching funds program. That's what I intend to do.
**
Like Don Watkins of Anger Management I'm in agreement with Peggy Noonan's views on looting:

There seems to be some confusion in terms of terminology on TV. People with no food and water who are walking into supermarkets and taking food and water off the shelves are not criminal, they are sane. They are not looters, they are people who are attempting to survive; they are taking the basics of survival off shelves in stores where there isn't even anyone at the cash register.

Looters are not looking to survive; they're looking to take advantage of the weakness of others. They are predators. They're taking not what they need but what they want. They are breaking into stores in New Orleans and elsewhere and stealing flat screen TVs and jewelry, guns and CD players. They are breaking into homes and taking what those who have fled trustingly left behind. In Biloxi, Miss., looters went from shop to shop. "People are just casually walking in and filling up garbage bags and walking off like they're Santa Claus," the owner of a Super 8 Motel told the London Times. On CNN, producer Kim Siegel reported in the middle of the afternoon from Canal Street in New Orleans that looters were taking "everything they can."

**
George Will in his column today joins the view that Tara Smith has expressed previously that judicial activism is not such a bad thing. Mr. Will however is fairly mixed in quality. He begins by trying to convince Conservatives that "dogmatic majoritarianism" is not a good thing and sites historical examples from the Republican party's history to support this argument:

The conservatives' party, the Republican Party, was born in reaction against repeal of the Missouri Compromise -- against, that is, the right, established by Congress in 1854, of Kansans to own slaves if a Kansas majority approved of that. The first Republican president was propelled to greatness by his recoil against allowing popular sovereignty to decide whether slavery should expand into particular territories.

And he continues with this excellent paragraph:

Lincoln's greatness was inseparable from his belief that there are some things that majorities should not be permitted to do -- things that violate natural rights, the protection of which is the Constitution's principal purpose. As Chief Justice John Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison , the theoretical foundation of judicial review, "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written."

However, he following this he deteriorates by relying on Daniel Farber's and Suzanna Sherry's book Desperately Seeking Certainty: The Misguided Quest for Constitutional Foundations, and claiming that "judicial review amounts to blocking a contemporary majority in the name of a past majority" but the founder amount to "an especially dignified majority" which is "owed special deference." True to his Conservatism, Will here shows a reverence for tradition. But the truth is that the Founders ought not to be revered because the reflected a majority at that time or because it was a special time but because, by and large, they were right. To the extent that they were wrong, their errors need to be corrected. Will concludes:

Even when the Supreme Court was most athwart public opinion -- striking down New Deal legislation -- voters sharply rebuked President Franklin Roosevelt for his plan to "pack" the court by enlarging it. So this is another powerful argument for the compatibility of judicial review with America's democratic values: the demos -- the public -- supports it.

Apropos FDR & the Supreme Court. I remember a long time ago listening to an abridged version of Judge Robert Bork's The Tempting of America. In the book Bork completely justifies Franklin D. Roosevelt's machinations against the Supreme Court. At the time Roosevelt was trying to invent new powers of government that the Constitution never allowed and the Justices were ruling one law after another unconstitutional. If memory serves me right, Bork compared the Conservative "activism" of the judges in the 1930s to the Liberal "activism" of judges in the 1960s and 1970s and thought both were wrong. I couldn't disagree more. (my memory on this is faulty -- see the Update and Correction below)

Judicial activism in the protection of rights is precisely what a Supreme Court justice ought to do as the quote above from Will about Lincoln also supports. Tara Smith in her article outlines the necessary qualifications a Supreme Court judge ought to have:

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

**
Update and Correction 9/2/2005
It has been pointed out to me that Judge Robert Bork did not in fact consider the New Deal court an example of judicial activism in his book The Tempting of America. I stand corrected on that. I was nevertheless correct that Judge Bork objects to what he terms "Conservative Constitutional Revisionism" as much as to "Liberal Constitutional Revisionism" and he has criticised conservative/libertarian thinkers such as Richard Epstein and Bernard Siegan for arguing that the Constitution do more than it should (according to Judge Bork) for economic liberties. He sympathizes with their ends but does not think the Court ought to be the means.

Amazing

Perhaps I haven't read the Los Angeles Times in great detail lately but I was under the impression that its editorial page, which is now edited by liberal ex-Crossfire host Michael Kinsley, was, well, liberal. However much to my great surprise I found today's editorial on the airline industry a breath of pro-capitalist free-market air. Here are some relevant quote:

MORE THAN A QUARTER-CENTURY after the deregulation of the airline industry, the nation's most successful airline is inexcusably barred by the government from flying to Southern California from its home base.

Wait, it gets better:

[The restriction]costs California hundreds of millions of dollars in lost economic activity, according to the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., which is lobbying for its repeal. It also illustrates a larger problem: government intervention that is hobbling the nation's dairline industry, which is projected to lose $5 billion this year. [emphasis added]

Admittedly not a moral argument but better than I've come to expect from the usually regulation supportive LA Times. The editorial continues:

Although the industry would be far healthier if some money-losing carriers simply folded, the federal government is overly protective of failing airlines. The abuse of bankruptcy laws, for example, is becoming routine in the industry — United now has been flying under Chapter 11 protection for nearly three years — but the government allows failing airlines to continue in operation without needing to pay all their bills.

And finally this:

Outdated restrictions on foreign ownership of U.S. airlines are another impediment to needed consolidation, investment and innovation. Northwest is showing welcome signs of surviving a strike by its mechanics union, but there still is a need for Congress to consider changes to the Railway Labor Act that would make airlines less hostage to big labor.[emphasis aded]

A liberal newspaper supporting changes in government support for the unions. Simply amazing! Of course, if it were up to me, all those acts placing the power of government force behind union, would be abolished, since they constitute an initiation of force against employers. Still, it's great to see that at least some free market principles seem to be less controversial in some previously less than favorable quarters.

Today's briefing

I'll begin with the bad, very bad in fact. Early reports on the Iraqi Constitution are not very promising. Fred Kaplan of Slate, in an essay appropriately entitled Articles of Consternation, points out the various problems. One item stands out near the beginning:

The charter is vague to the point of vacuousness in its most basic proclamations. Article 2 reads:

Islam is the official religion of state and a fundamental source for legislation.
(a) No law may contravene the essential verities of Islamic law.
(b) No law may contravene the principles of democracy.
(c) No law may contravene the rights and basic liberties enumerated in this constitution.

Among the "rights and liberties" enumerated are:

There are noble things in this constitution as well. Article 7 forbids racism, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing. Article 35 guarantees "human freedom and dignity." Article 36 guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of the press. But, again, it's hard to square these provisions with the rest of the document. There is also the occasional silliness, for instance Article 22, which guarantees all Iraqis the right of employment.

It really is difficult for me to understand why, when we have such an excellent example in our own Constitution, the U.S.-supported government there does not try to emulate it as some more intelligent commentators have suggested.
As Fred Kaplan correctly points out in the last sentence:

...it is not at all clear—with or without this constitution—what kind of government, what kind of nation, this war and this process have wrought.

**
Those who are still confused on the issue of Libertarianism vs. Objectivism would benefit by reading this excellent post by Paul Hsieh at NoodleFood. Paul discusses academic libertarian philosopher Randy Barnett's views on the compatibility of Libertarianism with different moral foundations. Paul quotes Barnett:

Libertarians need not choose between moral rights and consequences because theirs is a political, not a moral philosophy; one that can be shown to be compatible with various moral theories, which as we shall see is one source of its appeal. Moral theories based on either moral rights or on consequentialism purport to be "comprehensive," insofar as they apply to all moral questions to the exclusion of all other moral theories. Although the acceptance of one of these moral theories entails the rejection of all others, libertarian moral rights philosphers such as Eric Mack, Loren Lomasky, Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl on the one hand, and utilitarians such as Jan Narveson on the other can embrace libertarian political theory with equal fervor. (Page 6 of PDF file.)

The subjectivist foundation of Libertarianism is thus explicitly admitted to.
**

Finally, hat-tip to The Secular Foxhole for bringing to light the fact that there already a link on the Cambridge University Press website for Tara Smith's upcoming book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. Despite the rather steep list price ($80 !!) for the hardback edition, I can't wait for it to get published.

Various annoyances around the web

The Anti-War Left
I didn't get a chance to blog on this article yesterday. Norman Solomon has the rather optimistic prediction that "the Bush administration may ratchet up the Iraq war" -- optimistic for any supporter of the war. Mr. Solomon, is of course, opposed. And if anybody has any doubt as to the left's desired outcome for this war, consider this paragraph:

A lot of what sounds like opposition to the war is more like opposition to losing the war. Consider how Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Trudy Rubin concluded a piece on Sunday that disparaged Bush and his war policies. The column included eloquent, heartrending words from the mother of a Marine Corps Reserve member who died in Iraq early this year. And yet, the last quote from her was: “Tell us what it is going to take to win, Mr. Bush.” In a tag line, the columnist described it as a question “we all need an answer to.”

But some questions are based on assumptions that should be rejected—and “What is it going to take to win?” is one of them. In Iraq, the U.S. occupation force can’t “win.” More importantly, it has no legitimate right to try.

I dare say this is the kind of article that Dennis Prager would use to show the utter bankruptcy of the left and he would be right. It is difficult to imagine the profound evil contained in the above quote. If the present administration and much of the Conservative right are fighting this war inadequately, "progressive" intellectuals such as Solomon do not want any fight at all and consider all wars wrong.

Sullivan the Puritan
I generally respect Andrew Sullivan as he seems to try to think through political issues on his own and does not tow any particular party line. I didn't even mind his constant harping on the alleged torture and abuse of our various captured terrorists. I disagree with his conclusion -- that we should immediately stop the torture -- but I think we should prosecute this war with our eyes open because if we are going to win, it may take considerably more violence and mayhem than we have seen so far.

However one of today's entries in his blog was so corrupt that I have to comment. Sullivan agrees with Fareed Zakaria's point about the war on terror requiring greater energy efficiency. In addition he comments:

But what I didn't realize is how the curse of the SUV is so damaging. Fareed writes that 54 percent of today's U.S. fleet of cars are made up by these ugly, behemoth tanks that guzzle gas, and make life miserable for everyone not in them. My anti-SUV ire always goes up in the summer, when I see these vast, bloated symbols of excess bulldozing down the narrow streets of Provincetown, pushing every bicyclist, pedestrian or small child out of their way. My only solace is thinking of how many of these SUV owners are pouring money away to keep their mobile homes on the road. Pity that same money goes to finance Islamist terror. And please don't give me all this guff about how I don't have a car (hey, I'm not indirectly donating to al Qaeda), having to take kids here, there and everywhere, with all their stuff and the dogs and suburbs and soccer practices and on and on. All of this took place before SUVs; kids were just packed into back seats and trunks were stuffed full if necessary. Parents coped. Kids thrived. If all else failed, people could even have less stuff. Imagine that: less stuff. As readers know, I'd gladly put a dollar of extra tax on gas, insist on higher fuel standards for cars, make SUVs comply with the fuel standards of other cars and put a tax on SUVs on top pf all that. We are in a war. As far as I'm concerned, those people driving SUVs are aiding and abetting the enemy, and helping to finance the terrorists that want to kill us all. I'm well aware that the notion that the Bush administration has any interest in energy independence or taxing gas or deterring SUVs is about as likely as their demanding subsidies for sex-changes, but I might as well vent. We can always stigmatize these SUV-terror-enablers. How about bumper-stickers for non-SUVs that simply say: my car doesn't subsidize Saudi terror. Would that help? [emphasis added]

Sullivan has it wrong. We ought to be in a war, a war that destroys our Islamist enemies. We have had two wars and are now in the midst of fighting insurgencies of varying strengths in both countries we had supposedly defeated. The main sources of Islamic terror, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are untouched, and their main ally, Syria, equally so. So first of all it would be nice to have a real war, not a crusade for democracy.

Second, I don't happen to own an SUV but I completely reject Sullivan's argument. I don't accept the claim that the solution to the problem of the oil wealth going to terrorists is to economize on gasoline and thus send less money to the Middle East. The solution ought to be elimination of the terroristic Islamist governments and elimination of the terrorists. I have no interest in eliminating the oil wealth or reducing the use of oil. The oil wealth properly belongs to the Western companies that originally discovered and developed the oil fields before they were nationalized by the local governments. After the relevant governments there are defeated, the ownership of the oil fields should be transferred back to the private hands that developed them.

Around the web today

Thucydides (aka Brad Malestein) of Contemporary History graces us with one of his rare but poignant posts. This one deals with what we should do with Iran and I couldn't agree more:

If, however, we went out tomorrow and declared war on Iran, and bombed their nuclear facilities and cities until they surrendered or were blasted into the Stone Age, the glorious struggle would be a lot less glory, and a lot more struggle. Iran would have difficulty supplying terrorists, for one. Enthusiasm for risky terrorist ventures and suicide missions would wane, since there is a difference between dying for a cause and dying for nothing. Also, rather than guessing that Iran may have nuclear weapons in ten years, we would have a better estimate: never.

Elsewhere Robert Tracy of Illustrated Ideas posts a piece by Jack Wakeland of TIA about Cindy Sheehan with which I am in substantial agreement. Here's the most relevant paragraph:

And - most of all - Cindy Sheehan's grief does not give her license to condemn American civilization. Her grief does not exempt her from being morally judged by the rest of us. There is no excuse for what she is saying. She hates America for its virtues. She's purposely acting to undermine political support for a war of necessity. She is attempting - through the political process - to impair our national defense during a shooting war. She's evil.

Finally there's some positive science news from Switzerland in this story:

Professor Hohlfeld concludes: “We have shown that fetal skin is a substitute for biological skin that can provide burned patients with a very high quality of skin in a short time with no additional grafting techniques . . . In view of the therapeutic effects of this technique along with the simplicity in application, fetal skin cells could have great potential in tissue engineering.”

Book Recommendations

I'm rather depressed by the news from Israel at the moment, and I'm losing what little respect I had for the Bush administration as it pursues an alternatively altruistic or pragmatic (so-called "realistic" -- NY Times Registration required) foreign policy.

So instead of bemoaning the present world situation, I will offer some book recommendations of books I am reading or have read in the recent past.

Readers of this blog are aware that I'm presently reading and enjoying two books. Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto. Lincoln starts off slow but builds momentum as the story enters the 1850s and the issue of slavery becomes more prominent. Bernstein tells the story of the capitalism as it should be told, from the proper philosophical perspective (Objectivism) and with numerous interesting historical facts to buttress the case for capitalism.

Like millions of other fans I have recently finished J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I enjoyed it very much. Contrary to some reviews this book is not darker in spirit than the previous books in the series. The darkest of the Potter books remains Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

The Aristotle Adventure by Burgess Laughlin traces the journey of the works of Aristotle from the initial writings through the various cultures that studied and preserved it until they came fully back to the forefront during the days of Thomas Aquinas. Adventure is written for the layman and as the name implies is a lot of fun to read. In some respects it is similar to Aristotle's Children by Richard Rubenstein, who covers some of the same ground though Rubenstein's focus is on more on how Aristotle was rediscovered than on what exactly happened during the time his works were lost. Laughlin's book is very well organized and one learns about all the difficulties in preserving a set of writings over centuries, the many heroic individuals who studied, translated, preserved, copied and commented on Aristotle and thus helped pass it to future generations and a little about all the cultures that are involved, including Greek and Latin Pagan, Christian, and Moslem. It really is told as an exciting adventure because it is argued that with Aristotle's ideas goes the fate of civilization (with which I would agree).

Finally, earlier this year I read Richard Tarnas Passion of the Western Mind. The book does an excellent job of surveying Western ideas from the ancient Greeks to the present. I particularly liked the sections on Christianity and the details of Kant's Copernican revolution, in which Kant claimed that rather than attempting to have our ideas conform to reality, we should have reality conform to our ideas. On caveat though: As a result of Tarnas's sympathy for Freudian notions, the book contains an epilogue that is so absurd as to almost negate the value of the entire book. I recommend getting the book from a library and ignoring the epilogue.

Noteworthy...

• Don Watkins of Anger Management has announced plans to create "an online magazine, Axiomatic." Axiomatic is described as "a publication for Objectivists who wish to write seriously about Objectivist topics that are inappropriate for mainstream publications, and who do not wish to write for anti-Objectivist publications. " Giving the extraordinary high quality of Don's posts, this is something to look forward to. You can read the complete announcement here.
• With the vocal conservative opposition to federally funded stem cell research, it is easy to forget that there are also elements on the left that are skeptical of this research. Jesse Reynolds of the Center for Genetics and Society, writes in TomPaine.com:

What’s perhaps most disconcerting about unrestrained enthusiasm for stem cell research are the undesirable doors it may open. Stem cells are a key component in developing technologies of human genetic engineering and enhancement. While stem cell research should be supported, we must acknowledge that it is laying the technological and social foundation for our worst nightmares of a society of “genetically enhanced” and “naturals.” In our market-based society, it is easy to see how a new technologically based eugenics could emerge.


I fail to see what's wrong with with producing "genetically enhanced" individuals -- what exactly does Mr. Reynolds have against producing smarter, stronger and healthier individuals? Most of the false arguments in Reynolds's article are addressed in another essay at TomPaine.com by Susan Frank. She concludes appropriately, though naively:


The critics of life-saving stem cell research technologies use false claims, an anti-technology bias and an alarmist view of sensibly and ethically practiced medical research. Instead, progressives and conservatives should join together and affirm that embryonic stem cell research holds great promise for those suffering from diseases; thank responsible and ethical scientists for their tireless efforts; and hope that, someday soon, cures will be discovered.


I think Ms. Frank is naive because both conservatives and progressives have inherent ideological anti-science and anti-technology biases that cannot be easily overcome. Conservatives, to the extent that they are religious, will continue to appease religious opposition to scientific advance. Progressives, having some decades ago left their nominal pro-science attitude behind, are now opposed to any technological advance that will, in their mind, yield profits to corporations or affect the environment in any way at all.

• Cox and Forkum's take on the Israeli Disengagement.
  
  
  
  I couldn't express it better myself.
• Finally, the Ayn Rand Institute has announced the title of Yaron Brook's September 12 lecture that I mentioned here. It is entitled "Neo-Conservatives Vs. America: A Critique of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 9/11." I have heard a version of this talk on C-Span Radio this past weekend and he makes a good critique of the Neo-Conservative approach to foreign policy. I remember when I first got disillusioned with the Neo-Cons. I was listening to the Dennis Prager show. Prager had as his guest Bruce Herschensohn. This was after 9/11 but before the recent Iraq war. Herschensohn was discussing his foreign policy views and in addition to supporting the coming war on Iraq was, to my great surprise, going on about how the United States had a mission to actively liberate countries around the world. Prager agreed. I don't. The United States foreign policy should be focused on protecting its national interest as derived from its domestic policy, which ought to be laissez faire capitalism. We may support allies but our foreign policy ought not to be altruistic. For details see Peter Schwartz's recent monograph.
  

What's on the web today

Daniel Pipes writes the truth about Israel's Gaza withdrawal in his column entitled appropriately [The Gaza Withdrawal:] A Democracy Killing Itself. What Israel is doing here is quite sad and the repercussions will unfortunately be as bad or worse as the results of previous appeasements, whether by Israel or other countries.

Lincoln on Slavery

More from Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln. Not surprisingly, Lincoln is at his best when he discusses the issue of slavery such in the fascinating reasoning below written sometime in the early 1850s in a private memorandum to himself.

"If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B., why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A.?--You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."

Lincoln on free trade and the role of government

I'm continuing with my reading of Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln. I'll have something positive to say about Lincoln in the next post but let me first get this out of the way. Sadly, Lincoln did not appear to have a clear understanding of the benefits of free trade and rather thought tariffs served a useful purpose as the following passage from the book illustrates.
From p.88 (emphasis in original):

"To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." How could a government effect this? One remedy would be to "as far as possible, drive useless labour and idleness our of existence." For example, "Iron & every thing made of iron, can be produced in sufficient abundance, [and] with as little labour, in the United States, as anywhere else in the world; therefore, all labour done in bringing iron and it's fabrics from a foreign country to the United States is useless labor."...
Universal idleness should speedily result in universal ruin; ... and useless labour is, in this respect the same as idleness." Therefore, reasoned Lincoln, to abandon the protective tariff "must result in the increase of both useless labour, and idleness."

Lincoln seems not to have quite grasped how markets work. I claim to be no expert on this but I do understand this much. If a tariff has been imposed on imports, it is because the import is cheaper than the domestic manufacturer. If the imported items were consistently more expensive than the domestic ones, there would be no need for tariffs; the imports couldn't compete. But the very fact that the import may be cheaper than the domestic product serves to illustrate that Lincoln is wrong in his assumption that it makes no difference where the product is manufactured. If the import is cheaper then the foreign company is more efficient than the domestic and a cheaper alternative is provided to the domestic consumers of the product, some of whom may be businesses themselves that employ other people. Thus I don't see a danger of "idleness" when tariffs are abandoned. Instead, I see a tax that hurts both individuals in both countries. Of course, fundamentally if two individuals (or companies) have decided to trade with one another between two countries not at war with each other, no government ought to interfere. Any interference, such as tariffs, import quotas and the like would be a violation of their right to property.

In a separate passage on p. 115, Sandburg writes of Lincoln:

He wrote of the legitimate object of government being "to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves," such as "Making and maintaining roads and bridges, and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools; and disposing of deceased men's property." Military and civil departments were necessary . "If some men will kill, or beat, or constrain others, or despoil them of property, by force, fraud, or noncompliance with contracts, it is a common object with peaceful and just men to prevent it."

By the laissez faire standards of Objectivism this passage reflects badly on Lincoln and seems to provide the altruistic justification for all sorts of improper government functions. Still, I doubt his views were particularly revolutionary for his day and they are still a far cry from today's welfare state liberals and conservatives. In his own mind Lincoln did not seem to want expand government too much but ideas have consequences and the ideas the Lincoln supports in the above passages clearly point to a much more interventionist government.

VDH and Reason

In an otherwise typical column decrying the lack of attention paid by the liberal elites to the words of Islamic radicals, Victor Davis Hanson (VDH), includes this passage:

Throughout this war we have an understandable, if ethnocentric, habit of ignoring what our enemies actually say. Instead we chatter on, don’t listen, and in self-absorbed fashion impart our own motives for their hatred. We live on the principles of the Enlightenment and so worship our god Reason, thus assuming that even our adversaries accept such rational protocols as their own. [emphasis added]

Sometimes I really have trouble understanding what Conservatives such as VDH are talking about. To say that in this age of profoundly and explicitly irrational intellectual movements from the nihilist left such as environmentalism, egalitarianism, multiculturalism, and feminism and all the other Kant-derived absurdities, that we "worship our god Reason" and that this "worship" of Reason results in "assuming... our adversaries" are equally "rational" is really quite astounding.

Clearly, we are not living on the "principles of the Enlightenment," and Reason, as practiced during much of the Enlightenment, has in fact, left the building. Rather, we are living on the principles of 19th century collectivism, now fractured into multiculturalism, and 20th century pragmatism, as well as a seemingly growing religious revival, and various other irrationalities, in various forms, both left and right. And furthermore, how can anyone argue that as a result of reasoning we conclude that our enemies "accept ... rational protocols?" Our enemies are clearly bent on our destruction as they plainly say and VHD quotes:

“The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews — even the stones and trees which were harmed by them…The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.”

and

“What you have you seen, O Americans, in New York and Washington and the losses you are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, in spite of all the media blackout, are only the losses of the initial clashes.”

Only someone profoundly irrational would pretend that the people behind these ideas "accept ... rational protocols".

What then is the rational response to someone bent on destroying you? Here, Conservatives do indeed have a problem because they accept Hume's "is-ought" dichotomy. For what one "ought" to do cannot be the result of a rational consideration of the facts because they alone do not tell us what do ... or so Hume claimed. Conservatives then turn to religion in order to find the "oughts" -- the moral guidance that enables them to decide such questions. Presumably, since VDH dismisses the "god of Reason," he just knows by faith what needs to be done. The results of seeking such guidance have historically not been particularly encouraging.

So what is rational action anyway? How do we apply reason to decisions about actions? Well, let's take a simple case. Is it rational to take a nap? How can we evaluate this decision? It depends entirely on the context in which one is planning to take a nap and what purposes one has in mind. If one is at home on the weekend and wants to relax after a tiring week at work, taking a nap can be very rational action. If one is at work and wants to continue to work there, taking a nap is a very irrational action. Rational and irrational, thus firstly relate to whether in a given context an action achieves the actors purpose. In order to evaluate actions as rational or irrational we need to know what the potential actor is trying to achieve. And furthermore, a purpose or end is also subject to evaluation -- thus actions are to be evaluated in two ways: By whether the action is likely to achieve the actor's purpose, and by whether the purpose itself is rational.

The rationality of a purpose can be evaluated only with respect to a more fundamental purpose. As a result, an ultimate purpose becomes necessary, otherwise there is an infinite regress. That purpose is one's life which one must choose to value in order for all of one's other purposes and actions to be evaluated as rational and moral. It is very relevant here to note that the Islamists open proclaim that they do not value their own lives and will gladly sacrifice them for Allah.

Contrary to VDH, if we were living on "Enlightment principles", worshipping the "god of Reason", we would be faring far better in this war. I conclude with a quote from the best of the Enlightenment thinkers, John Locke (Second Treatise, chapter III), discussing what one's rational reaction should be toward the likes that VDH mentions:

The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man’s life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power. [emphasis added]

We're running out of landfill space...Not!


The business section of today's NY Times has an informative story on landfills and the fact that contrary to popular opinion a few years ago dump capacity has been expanding, not shrinking.

Must Read...

Check out Caroline Glick's (who is fast becoming my favorite columnist) excellent Column One in the Jerusalem Post. Here are some choice excerpts.

...while in the wake of the London bombings the West is finally beginning to take the threat of suicide terrorism in its towns seriously, this newfound sobriety at home is occurring at the same time that the Bush administration is striking out on a policy of curtailing its war on terror abroad. This policy of curtailing US offensive actions against terrorism internationally is evident both in its handling of Iraq's rapid deterioration into a Shi'ite-ruled Islamist state along the lines of Iran and even more dangerously in the US's feckless handling of the rising Iranian nuclear threat.

A couple of items I noticed today

It is common to assume that the sciences whether natural or otherwise are "bastions of secularism" (as Dennis Prager would say). However a recent survey seems to suggest otherwise.

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

This is not really a big surprise. The number of committed atheists in this country is quite small.
I think this is partly because most widely known secular philosophies are of the nihilist skeptical variety or of the communist kind. As a result, many intellectuals turn to religion despite their secular occupations because they must have an integrating point of view. As Dr. Leonard Peikoff put it in OPAR:

Philosophy is not a bauble of the intellect, but a power from which no man can abstain. Anyone can say that he dispenses with a view of reality, knowledge, the good, but no one can implement this credo. The reason is that man, by his nature as a conceptual being, cannot function at all without some form of philosophy to serve as his guide.


**
Jacob Weisberg of Slate has written a reasonably good essay on the incompatibility of evolution and religion. Here's an excerpt:

But the acceptance of evolution diminishes religious belief in aggregate for a simple reason: It provides a better answer to the question of how we got here than religion does. Not a different answer, a better answer: more plausible, more logical, and supported by an enormous body of evidence. Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch.

Weisberg is correct. A systematic application of reason and science to the issues of life completely eliminates God from the picture.

What's on the web today

• Blogger Gus Van Horn writes an excellent "fisking" of Dennis Prager's column.
• Bad News: The NY Times reports today that "Iran Removes Seals on Equipment at Nuclear Plant"
• Good News: The Washington Post reports that the "Rice Genome [has been] Fully Mapped"
  

The missing alternative

In his weekly column today, Dennis Prager continues his series of articles on "The Case for Judeo-Christian Values." Today's column is chapter XX and is entitled, "There Is No Viable Alternative." Prager notes that he "contrasted Judeo-Christian values only with leftist values: secularism, liberalism, socialism, humanism, environmentalism" and has done so because "secular and leftist values are the dominant values of most of the world's elites" and "secular/leftist values are the only viable alternative to Judeo-Christian values."

Sadly, Prager misses the one alternative that does provide Viable Values -- Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand. In fact it is only Objectivism that can provide a objective basis for moral values as well as a systematic philosophy with views in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics. On the basis of her unique theory of concepts Ayn Rand argued that the concept value is hierarchically dependent on the concept life. It is life that makes values both possible and necessary. Man's life becomes the standard of value and rationality the primary virtue. Details can be found in the links above but the alternative exists. It's just a shame Prager chooses not to acknowledge it.

Pet Peeves...


Dictionary.com defines "pet peeve" as "a particular or recurring source of irritation." I have several philosophical pet peeves, specific views argued by today's intellectuals that to me are so blatantly wrongheaded as to be profoundly enraging. Two examples are below:

1. There is no morality without God. This is of course an old one. Since I used to listen to Dennis Prager a lot, I would hear this refrain all the time but just about everyone on the Conservative side of the intellectual spectrum voices this view. And anybody who has seriously paid attention to what Ayn Rand has written in her novel Atlas Shrugged and her book The Virtue of Selfishness knows that morality is possible without God, in fact God makes an objective morality impossible.
2. Free will and/or consciousness are scientifically impossible. For an example see this article. Usually such assertions of determinism or epiphenomenalism come from the Liberal side of the intellectual spectrum, from people who fancy themselves as having a scientific point of view and cannot be bothered with such mystical notions as volition or consciousness. Frankly, the level of dishonesty necessary to proclaim that free will is an illusion simply boggles the mind. The problem with their viewpoint is the very obvious fact that if it applies to them then they have no choice as to what views to accept or reject. They are determined to believe in determinism just as I am allegedly determined to believe in free will. Instead of accepting free will as a self-evident axiom the determinists pretend that scientific discovery begins in a vacuum without any underlying assumptions. As a result, atoms and molecules are a certainty but the faculties of man's consciousness that were required to discover them are a problematic phenomenon requiring explanation.
   

The Capitalist Manifesto

In addition to reading Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln, I've just recently received Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto -- I have to say I am very much impressed. The book seems well organized and full of fascinating historical details. Right now I'm in the middle of chapter 2: The Pre-Capitalist Political-Economic Systems. Here's an excerpt from the Manifesto about what life was like before the Industrial Revolution:

Prior to the advent of industrial capitalism (in roughly the 1760s) the lot of the English working class was generally miserable. Utter destitution was rampant, literal starvation not uncommon and the country was overrun with paupers.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest of it. I've also ordered Brian Simpon's Markets Don't Fail! -- it's starting to be difficult to keep up with all the books Objectivist intellectuals are publishing. I think that's great!

Cox and Forkum hit one out of the ballpark...

Here's the permalink if the picture below is absent.

What's on the web today

The NY Times reports today that some bombs used in Iraq are made in Iran, U.S. says. Here's an excerpt:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - Many of the new, more sophisticated roadside bombs used to attack American and government forces in Iraq have been designed in Iran and shipped in from there, United States military and intelligence officials said Friday, raising the prospect of increased foreign help for Iraqi insurgents.

American commanders say the deadlier bombs could become more common as insurgent bomb makers learn the techniques to make the weapons themselves in Iraq.

One hopes vain that someday this government will wake up to the fact that we are at war with Iran and act accordingly.

**

Victor Davis Hanson writes about the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.

Americans of the time hardly thought the Japanese populace to be entirely innocent. The Imperial Japanese army routinely butchered civilians abroad — some 10-15 million Chinese were eventually to perish — throughout the Pacific from the Philippines to Korea and Manchuria. Even by August 1945, the Japanese army was killing thousands of Asians each month. When earlier high-level bombing attacks with traditional explosives failed to cut off the fuel for this murderous military — industries were increasingly dispersed in smaller shops throughout civilian centers — Curtis LeMay unleashed napalm on the Japanese cities and eventually may have incinerated 500,000.

In order to win the present war it will be necessary to adopt the same attitude toward the country of Iran (and others) as was held during WWII toward Japan.

What's on the web today

Lincoln the fatalist

While I'm continuing to read Carl Sandburg's biography of Abraham Lincoln, I came across this interesting statement, published by Lincoln in response to attacks on him by Christian critics:

"FELLOW CITIZENS:

"A charge having got into circulation in some of the neighborhoods of this District, in substance that I am an open scoffer at Christianity, I have by the advice of some friends concluded to notice the subject in this form. That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or any denomination of Christians in particular. It is true that in early life I was inclined to believe in what I understand is called the "Doctrine of Necessity" -- that is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind itself has no control; and I have sometimes (with one, two or three, but never publicly) tried to maintain this opinion in argument. The habit of arguing thus however, I have, entirely left off for more than five years. And I add here, I have always understood this same opinion to be held by several of the Christian denominations. The foregoing, is the whole truth, briefly stated, in relation to myself, upon this subject.

"I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences, between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, or the community in which he may live. If, then, I was guilty of such conduct, I should blame no man who should condemn me for it; but I do blame those, whoever they may be, who falsely put such a charge in circulation against me." -- Handbill Replying to Charges of Infidelity, 31 July 1846 (copied from here)

So it would seem that Lincoln while not being particularly religious was something of a determinist. Of course determinism in the guise of predestination was always a feature within Christianity, which continues to struggle with the implications this poses to the existence of free will. One wonders if Lincoln got his determinism directly out of Christianity or out of reading some secular philosophers. It seems to be the former.

What's on the web today...

I browse several dozen news, opinion, blogs and other websites every day. Here's what I found of broader interest today:

Mark Steyn writes eloquently in a column entitled The etiquette of modern warfare in today's Jerusalem Post:

...an enemy folds when he knows he's finished. In Iraq, despite the swift fall of the Saddamites, it's not clear the enemy did know. Indeed, the western peaceniks pre-war "human shields" operation proved to be completely superfluous mainly because the Anglo-American forces decided to treat not just Iraqi civilians and not just Iraqi conscripts but virtually everyone other than Saddam, Uday and Qusay as a de facto human shield. Washington made a conscious choice to give every Iraqi the benefit of the doubt, including the fake surrenderers who ambushed the US marines at Nasiriyah.

In happier technological news Akio Namiki and colleagues at the University of Tokyo, Japan have built a Robot catcher grabs high speed projectiles, as reported by Newscientist. See the video (about 9 MB) -- it's pretty cool.

On the Ayn Rand Institute's web site I am pleased to see that a couple of new local (to Irvine, California) public lectures have been announced:

Monday, September 12, 2005, Free Public Lecture (title TBD) By Yaron Brook
Thursday, November 17, 2005, Creationism in Camouflage: The "Intelligent Design" Deception By Keith Lockitch
Time: 6:30 PM: Bookstore opens, 7:30 PM: Lecture, 8:30 PM: Q & A
Location: Hyatt Regency Irvine 17900 Jamboree Rd. Irvine, CA 92614

More baby blues
Click on the Dilbert comic below for more detail.

With the birth of a newborn comes sleeplessness. So far my son still mostly wakes up every 2 hours and that means my wife and I wake up as well. At least I'm only working half-days this week.

There are all sorts of books on my list to read, many of which I own already. Presently, I'm trying to finish Carl Sandburg's Abraham Lincoln. I acquired it within the last two years when I noticed it among the special value hard covers at the local Borders Bookstore, but I've only started reading it recently. So far I'm about 80 pages into it. Lincoln's early years certainly make plain the humble background in which he grew up. He engaged in lots of manual labor. At one point he even was a wrestler. At this point in the book he is still a young lawyer with some political connections with the Whigs. I am not yet particularly impressed with him. He has so far supported legal measures that I would be opposed to such as tariffs. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to further reading and hope to acquire a more detailed knowledge of the Civil War period, of which I am ignorant in many ways.

On a personal note...

My son was born July 23, 2005 at 12:26am. Here's a link to brief album of photographs.

Europe and the Nihilism of Intellectuals

In a fascinating article (registration required) in today's (June 17, 2005) Wall Street Journal, author Paul Johnson presents his analysis of What Europe Really Needs. He begins by describing the problem:

That Europe as an entity is sick and the European Union as an institution is in disorder cannot be denied. But no remedies currently being discussed can possibly remedy matters.
...
The fundamental weaknesses of the EU that must be remedied if it is to survive are threefold. First, it has tried to do too much, too quickly and in too much detail.
...
The EU's economic philosophy, insofar as it has one, is epitomized by one word: "convergence." The aim is to make all national economies identical with the perfect model. This, as it turns out, is actually the perfect formula for stagnation.

Of course, the European bureaucracy and attempt at a successful mixed economy (with equal parts of capitalism and socialims) are fairly well known. Even Sweden, which used to be held up as a model welfare state, is now seen to be less than ideal (for example, see this op-ed in the Washington Times). Johnson also mentions rising anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism as part of the problem. Less well understood is the third point that Johnson makes:

There is another still more fundamental factor in the EU malaise. Europe has turned its back not only on the U.S. and the future of capitalism, but also on its own historic past. Europe was essentially a creation of the marriage between Greco-Roman culture and Christianity. Brussels has, in effect, repudiated both.
...
Equally, what strikes the observer about the actual workings of Brussels is the stifling, insufferable materialism of their outlook.
...
The EU has no intellectual content. Great writers have no role to play in it, even indirectly, nor have great thinkers or scientists.

Note that Johnson observes that both Christianity and Philosophy (described as "Greco-Roman culture") has been rejected. He does not explain what led to the rejection. But the answer is known to all who have read Dr. Leonard Peikoff's book The Ominous Parallels -- the answer lies in the philosophical trend that led to the present intellectual milieu. Great writers were once admired because they expressed profound views on the important issues in life whether directly through philosophical writings or indirectly through art. Unfortunately, today's intellectuals reject any attempt at greatness or importance as a result of the explicit nihilism that they have adopted. It does not matter to them whether the greatness is religious or secular. That nihilism can be seen in the form of multiculturalism and environmentalism, two ideologies that are fundamentally destructive of all values, spiritual and material.