Miami Vice: Cool, it is!

I went to see King Kong yesterday and caught the trailer for Miami Vice.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From what I saw, it looks like Miami Vice is going to be the coolest movie of 2006! In fact, I predict it's going to be cooler than all the other movies that are going to be released next year put together!

New Mexico Virgin

This makes me nervous. A spaceport run by the New Mexico government will be subject to the inherent and arbitrary vagaries of politics. It does not strike me as being a solid foundation for Branson's new venture - or any one else's, for that matter. I really wish Branson would build his own spaceport with his own money and run it himself on land that he personally owns. The quicksand of politics is nothing to build an industry on.

Just one issue: look at what has already happened to SpaceX because of their decision to use existing government launch facilities. Why wouldn't a spaceport in New Mexico experience similar conflicts with nearby government and military facilities that could and will claim priority on launch windows?

Katrina

After reading Robert Tracinski's assessment - in TIA Daily - of the situation in New Orleans, plus the posts on various aspects of the disaster response and recovery effort on the Harry Binswanger List, the only conclusion left for me to draw is that whoever decides to return to New Orleans and Louisiana to rebuild should make it one of their very first and crucial priorities to circulate recall petitions for both Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco. Both of them are obviously incompetent political hacks who were not the least bit interested in preparing for Hurrican Katrina, despite the fact that they both had at least 2 days to do so. In this, I see no difference between their response and the response of those welfare dependents who saw no reason to flee New Orleans or prepare for the aftermath.

As I see it, Hurrican Katrina as an atrocity is not so unspeakable as the characters of Nagin and Blanco.

On the metaphysical status of bullies

Anyone who places force ahead of thought is less than human.

Jimmy Doohan gone

I would not be a true Trekkie if I did not acknowledge the passing of Jimmy Doohan, who will be forever known as Scotty - Mr Scott (or Lt Montgomerty Scott) from Star Trek. As far as I know, Doohan is the second of the cast of the original series to pass - after DeForest Kelley, who played Dr McCoy.

Ah, Star Trek! Perhaps some day I will post something about my experiences as a member of Enid's Star Trek club back in the 70's . . .

It was rather wrenching to read the headline about Doohan on NYTimes.com just now. I'm not looking forward to hearing about Shatner and Nimoy . . .

Steamboy is a masterpiece!

"There is no gene for the human spirit."

That's from a posting by Sarah Hintz on THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans. The posting discusses the film Gattaca.

Thank you, Muskogee!

This story has just made my day: voters in Muskogee have rejected a new sales tax that would fund a city "economic development" group!

Muskogee shoots down tax - Muskogee Phoenix

"It's sending a loud-and-clear message that Muskogee is closed for business," said Lisa Clark, executive director of Muskogee Development. "It has a definite negative impact. We'll be unable to attract businesses. It kind of immobilizes us."

But some voters said they didn't see it that way.

"The reason why I disagree with it is that every time one of those temporary sales taxes come to an end, they put it back on the ballot," said Chris Williams. "They aren't ever temporary."

The article doesn't say this, but maybe one of the reasons Muskogee voters rejected the tax is because these "economic development" groups are notorious for their cronyism and abuse of eminent domain.

Hey Muskogee! I've got a suggestion for you! Want more business? Why not try laissez-faire Capitalism!

I think I'll write a letter and send it to the Muskogee Phoenix!

The New Populism

I don't believe that the Religious Right really is all that popular. I think that whatever popularity it does have is being blown out of proportion by scare-mongers seeking to cash in on the Religious Right's attempts to grab power.

But to the extent that the Religious Right does have any popularity, what is its real source? It is human beings' need of a code of morality. The self-destruction of modern philosophy has rendered it unable and unwilling to fill this need. But if modern philosophers don't want to teach people how to find their own answers to moral questions anymore, by teaching that Reason is impotent to provide those answers - it's not, but modern philosophers are - human beings will turn to whoever offers them "answers", however illusory and inaccurate those answers may be - even if those answers include being told not to ask questions: in other words, to rely on faith.

For the power of morality in human existence is a truly awesome one: it is such that human beings would rather be good than right. The "ideal" will always trump the "practical".

If it sounds like what I'm trying to say is that it is modern philosophy that is leading people to religion, it's because that's exactly what I'm saying.

Fortunately, there is one philosophy that stands a chance of reversing this trend: by upholding Reason, identifying its true nature - including the actual nature of its relation to emotion (without Reason there would be no emotions as human beings experience them) - and its power to fill human beings' need for morality - which includes the power to integrate the ideal and the practical. That philosophy is Objectivism.

And I think the Ayn Rand Institute is doing an excellent job of "popularizing" it.

What's wrong with the world

This, to me, is what's wrong with the world today in a nutshell. It's from a description of a course being offered at this summer's Objectivist Conference, "The Rise and Fall of Ancient Greek Justice: Homer to the Sermon on the Mount" to be taught by Robert Mayhew.

The traditional ancient Greek conception of justice is best captured by the idea of helping friends and harming enemies. This conception of justice is improved by later thinkers (like Aeschylus), reaches its climax in Aristotle's moral philosophy—and is utterly rejected by Jesus, who told the pagan world: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you."

The latter, of course, is the prevailing view of morality today - summed up, in both religious and secular versions, by the word "altruism".

Geldof and Live 8

Has Bob Geldof learned anything from his experiences with the Live Aid concerts in 1985?

Well, I haven't seen any pronouncements from him yet this time, but I well remember when he was promoting Band Aid and Live Aid back in the 80's. His mantra back then was "This is not about politics". "This" being poverty, of course, the implication being that anyone who dared to mention the political realities - by which I mean the actual causes - of hunger in places like sub-Saharan Africa was, by definition, an anti-humanitarian monster. Of course, it didn't help the actual starving victims of Africa's political realities that Geldof got his come-uppance when his first convoys of "humanitarian aid" to the region were seized by the dictators-of-the-moment in the region.

At least, that's the way I remember events. Didn't hear much from Geldof about that, as I recall.

So I'm rather surprised to see him trying the same trick again, twenty years later. Or should I be?

I think the next time Geldof claims that hunger and poverty don't have anything to do with politics, somebody should call him on it and remind him of what happened the last time he said that.

And tell him that there is a sure-fire cure for poverty and hunger, but it's not a rock concert: it's laissez-faire Capitalism.

In other words: FREEDOM.

The Return of Liberty

The word "Liberty" has been out of favor in the world for far too long. Thank you, Mikheil Saakashvili, for resurrecting it!

From The Intellectual Activist Daily:

Today's Wall Street Journal, at http://tinyurl.com/bd367, provides a good profile of Georgia's "Rose Revolution" and the 37-year-old, Columbia-University-educated Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. But nothing is as eloquent as Saakashvili's own op-ed in today's Washington Post, in which he calls for a new Yalta conference to promote the spread of liberty in the former Soviet republics--and beyond.

http://tinyurl.com/dq28n

"Time for a Return to Yalta," Mikheil Saakashvili, Washington Post, May 10

"For 60 years the word 'Yalta' has meant betrayal and abandonment. The diplomatic accord reached between Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States in that sleepy Black Sea resort relegated millions of people to a ruthless tyranny.... Now it is our turn to contribute to the completion of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace. After recent discussions with presidents Traian Basescu of Romania and Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine, I believe that it is time for a new Yalta Conference, a voluntary association of new European democracies with three central goals. First, we must work together to support the consolidation of democracy in our own countries.... Second, we must extend the reach of liberty in the Black Sea region and throughout wider Europe.... The new Yalta Conference will press for liberty in Belarus through increased travel restrictions on government officials, expanded financial and material support to the opposition, and enhanced training for civic society in the methods of peaceful protest that helped free the people of Georgia and Ukraine. Third, we seek to expand the frontiers of freedom far beyond the Black Sea. Our message to the oppressors and their subjects is unequivocal: Free peoples cannot rest while tyranny thrives. Just as we benefit from the blessings of liberty, we have a duty to those who remain beyond its reach. In Zimbabwe, Cuba, Burma and elsewhere, millions live under cruel tyrants. Too many governments and international organizations appear willing to sacrifice freedom for what they mistakenly believe will be stability. We know that only the consent of the governed brings stability. And we know that if the world's democracies make liberty the priority of their policy, the days of the dictators are numbered."

Would privatizing Social Security undermine the Religious Right?

In today's TIA Daily, Ed Thompson writes, in a letter on 'progressive indexing':

It's not that the left doesn't want Social Security cuts for the poor; it's that they want them to *be* poor.

Altruism, the idea that individuals do not have the right to live solely for their own sake, presupposes poverty--real or imagined. Without poverty, the altruists are out of business.

The relationship between altruism and the Left has been clear to me for some time. The idea of privatizing Social Security is something that is being put forward by the Right. However, if alleviating poverty would undercut the altruist justification for religious morality, then I can understand why support for privatizing Social Security has been so tepid on the Right.

Indeed, the Religious Right has been more than just tepid. It has shown a willingness to be openly antagonistic over the issue: they have already attempted to hold Social Security hostage to force the President to give more support to a constitutional ban on Gay marriage.

Perhaps they do understand that the more prosperity there is, the less attractive their morality looks.

Once again, this confirms for me the hypocrisy of the Religious Right, who pay lip service to free market economics while preaching altruism. All their talk of free markets is merely a cover for their true goal, which is religious dictatorship.

Kung Fu Hustle is a fucking masterpiece!

I saw it today and I can't wait to see it again!

The Most Dangerous News

This is the most dangerous statement I've seen so far in stories about the new pope:

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, applauded the selection.

"The new pope, like his predecessor, understands the grave danger that awaits a society wherein each individual makes up his own morality," he said in New York, The A.P. reported. "It may not sell in the U.S., but it is nonetheless true that a society that refuses to acknowledge that morality is a social attribute, not an individual one, is bound to culturally implode."

http://tinyurl.com/eyuor

The only way to keep individuals from "making up" their own morality is government coercion. This is why theocracies are dictatorships.

Of course, individuals don't "make up" moralities, they perceive them in the facts of reality. The thing which enables them to do this is the human mind's capacity for Reason. Of course it is possible for a given individual to ignore reality and actually make something up, but this is not morality, but only the evasion of it. Mr. Donohue, though, is implying that this is the only alternative to "morality as a social attribute". His statement is meant to distract from the fact that morality is actually an attribute of the individual, not society, and blanks out the facts of human rationality and volition - and the facts that those are attributes of the individual - in order to do so.

What Mr. Donohue is trying to distract you from and avoid naming is only everything that makes human beings human.

Scalia must go!

Antonin Scalia's cheerleading for the tyranny of the majority was on full display Wednesday during oral arguments in two cases regarding displays of the Ten Commandments on government property:

When Chemerinsky objected that "it is a profoundly religious message," Scalia responded: "It is a profoundly religious message, but it's shared by the vast majority of the people. . . . It seems to me the minority has to be tolerant of the majority's view." Washington Post, "Division of Church, State At High Court"

What if the majority's view is that the minority should have their rights denied, or taken away from them? This certainly seems to be the goal of supporters of constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage regarding homosexuals.

Or even exterminated outright? This, of course, was the Nazi Party's view of the Jews in Germany.

To me, Scalia's response clearly shows not only his contempt for individual rights, but a desire to openly establish a state religion. As far as I'm concerned, when Scalia condemns those he accuses of "interpreting" the Constitution, he is committing a fraud, for that is exactly what he is doing here.

Antonin Scalia has no place on the Supreme Court, or anywhere else in American jurisprudence.

The thrill is back!

Leonard David's Space Colonization: The Quiet Revolution on Space.com is the most exciting thing I've read in a long time. It reminds me of the way I used to feel about technology back in the 60's when I was a kid who was addicted to NASA launches and whose favorite TV show was Jonny Quest. Back then, the words "New and Improved!" were anything but a tired advertising gimmick to me.

David begins his article by suggesting that the "giggle factor" is gone from the general public's perception of private space efforts, thanks mainly to Burt Rutan's achievement with his SpaceShipOne. But, to me, there may be something much more profound going on, something that is usually derided as "gee-whiz", but which is, I think, actually - hopefully - a growing excitement about the possibilities of the future:

"During the last half of the 20th century, a host of technologies and disciplines which had witnessed millennia of slow or no growth…suddenly went exponential," McCullough reported at the STAIF meeting.

McCullough pointed to photography, chemistry and quantum mechanics that have combined to produce a new industrial revolution. Electrical and mechanical engineering are on courses that appear to indicate unbounded exponential improvement. Delving into the structure of DNA has spurred a better understanding of the cellular processes. The human genome has been sequenced and micro biomechanics has taken off, he said.

Furthermore, the centuries old technology of printing has been extended to three dimensions with inks of polymers, ceramics, wood and metals.

"These technologies have affected other technologies so that now at the dawn of the 21st century, one technology after another is assuming an exponential trajectory," McCullough noted. . . .

"There are so many technologies coming on," McCullough told SPACE.com. "The commercial drivers of these technologies are so massive, and the money is so large, that they they’re going to come right out of the blue," he said.

There are many more advancements that are already in the pipeline, McCullough said. "Some of the technologies that are out there are going to allow us to do some things that people are going to find incredible."

I can only hope that we see fit to provide the freedom required to keep this revolution going.

Good one!

Ran across this whilst surfing the AtomFilms blog:

Survivor starts its tenth season tonight.

Ten seasons of preening, back-stabbing, no-talent narcissists who think a month of drinking rain water and arguing with a lazy hick from Alabama over who cut down more palm fronds will make them a star.

http://blog.atomfilms.com/archives/2005/02/index.html#a000051

One more reason why I don't have a television.

Wish I could be in Berlin

Well, I'm surfing the 'net this afternoon, and since I'm curious to see more of Berlin after watching The Bourne Supremacy last weekend (I downloaded it from Movielink!), I'm discovering that there is a major exhibition on the work of Stanley Kubrick going on there right now, complete with "recreations" (at least I think that's what they are) of the HAL 9000 main memory from 2001: A Space Odyssey and the Korova Milkbar from A Clockwork Orange! Artifacts on display include the fiberglass sculpture used to depict the Starchild at the end of 2001! The official exhibit website - www.stanleykubrick.de - has some of the actual Polaroid lighting tests from 2001!

WOW!

Ain't the Internet wonderful?

The Enemies of the Enlightenment

What would have been the fate of Rushdie's Satanic Verses under such a law? How would such a law not place Britain on the side of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who sentenced Rushdie to death for writing that book? How does such a law not pave the way for the reinstatement of "blasphemy" laws?

As for me, I think it is time to publicly state that I agree with Voltaire:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

From The Intellectual Activist Daily

Commentary: The Enemies of the Enlightenment

This is a nice identification about Britain's proposed "incitement to religious hatred" law--from an author who knows a thing or two about the subject. Note that Rushdie characterizes this, accurately, as a battle to preserve the Enlightenment. But notice also who the Enlightenment's main enemies are, in this case: the supposedly secular, "politically correct" left.

http://tinyurl.com/4flx5

"Democracy Is No Polite Tea Party," Salman Rushdie, LA Times, February 7

"I recently returned from a trip to Britain, where I discovered, to my consternation, that the government is proposing a law to ban what it is calling 'incitement to religious hatred.' This measure, much beloved by liberals, is apparently designed to protect people 'targeted' because of their religious beliefs. But I see nothing to applaud. To me it is merely further evidence that in Britain, just as in the United States, we may need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again. That battle, you may remember, was about the church's desire to place limits on thought. Diderot's novel 'La Religieuse,' with its portrayal of nuns and their behavior, was deliberately blasphemous: It challenged religious authority, with its indexes and inquisitions, on what was possible to say. Most of our contemporary ideas about freedom of speech and imagination come from the Enlightenment. But although we may have thought the battle long since won, if we aren't careful, it is about to be 'un-won.' "

Oklahoma, Tunisia, Senegal and Liberia

"If self-interest is myopic and brutal, why is it that the cultures that embrace it are prosperous and free, while the cultures that reject it are stagnant and impoverished?"

That's the question Nick Provenzo asks in The Moral Basis of Mindlessness at his Rule Of Reason blog at the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism site.

FREEDOM

"Al Ghizi's husband, Abbas, spent two years in jail in Iraq before leaving for Kuwait in 1986. He hasn't seen his family since. A generally happy man who is thrilled to be voting, he will talk about anything but what happened in jail. 'A lot of bad things happened to people in jail,' he said, and that's about it. 'They were hurting people all the time.' Why vote? 'I'm doing this for my people,' he responds. 'To be fully free, we need the right president. I've been in this country 13 years. I can do whatever I want. I want my people just like me. I can do something. I can buy something. I can vote for anybody.' "

- "They Drove 22 Hours for a Defining Moment," Maria L. La Ganga, LA Times, January 30

More soap and water

I think this is so apropos in light of what I posted on Saturday:

" . . . in the left's eyes, there is equality in starvation and that trumps
the requirements of survival."

- Harry Binswanger, in this morning's HBL

Time for the soap and water

I just spent the afternoon listening to two Phillips Seminary professors tell Democrats how to outdo the Republicans at using religion to get votes.

Now I feel dirty.

Based on what I heard at this little event, the Democratic Party is headed for disaster. Everything I heard at this event confirmed all the criticisms leveled against the Left by the contributors to the HBL and TIA Daily.

The worst part is that these people absolutely refuse to understand what's really going on in the Republican Party. They're stuck in this fantasy of the GOP as being pro-free-market, pro-individualism and anti-government. While that may have been somewhat true at one time, it certainly is not anymore. The Republican Party of today is committed to neo-conservatism and that means more power, not less - which means more government, not less. Want proof? All you have to do is look at what has happened to the size of the federal government since Bush took office. There's your proof.

Of course I could also mention Ed Gillespie's remark that the Republican Party didn't stand for smaller government anymore. But the final seal for me is the letter to President Bush sent on January 18th by a coalition of religious conservatives calling itself the Arlington Group. In the letter, they told Bush that he had better get behind the anti-Gay-marriage amendment or they will withhold their support for privatizing Social Security. If these people are willing to throw away the best chance we have to reduce the size of the federal government just so they can oppress a few of this country's citizens, they can no longer claim to have any genuine interest in freedom whatsoever.

But try telling that to liberal activists. Of course, part of the problem is that they never had any interest in freedom in the first place. They're all about "community" and how we're all "responsible" for each other and their fantasy that there's no Human Being who's capable of living his life without them. Which is where religion comes in, since that's where they got that idea in the first place ("we are our brothers' keeper").

So if, as Robert Tracinski maintains, the Democratic Party is on its way out, I just didn't have the heart to speak up when the question was asked: could any non-believing candidate get elected these days?

I could have said "Yes, he could." But I didn't: because the non-believing candidate who got elected is Arnold Schwarzenegger - who is an atheist.

And, well, he is a Republican, you know. Not that it says anything good about the Republican Party, but I just couldn't rub it in.

All of which is just more confirmation for me that politics is an effect, not a cause.

Radical independence of mind

What is the appeal of Ayn Rand? Onkar Ghate has written an op-ed on the subject for the Ayn Rand Instititute. February 2nd is the 100th anniversary of her birthday, and Ghate maintains that Rand's appeal comes from her conviction that ideas matter:

The key to Rand's popularity is that she appeals to the idealism of youth. She wrote in 1969: "There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days--the conviction that ideas matter." The nature of this conviction? "That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one's mind matters. And the radiance of that certainty, in the process of growing up, is the best aspect of youth."

To sustain this youthful conviction throughout life, Rand argues, one must achieve a radical independence of mind. Independence does not mean doing whatever one feels like doing but rather forging one's convictions and choosing one's actions rationally, logically, scientifically. It is refusal to surrender one's ideas or values to the "public interest," as liberals demand, or to the "glory of God," as conservatives demand. It is refusal to grant obedience to any authority, human or divine. The independent mind rejects faith, secular or supernatural, and embraces reason as an absolute. "The noblest act you have ever performed," declares the hero of Rand's last novel, Atlas Shrugged, "is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four." She meant it.

The conviction that ideas matter represents a profound dedication to self. It requires that one regard one’s own reasoning mind as competent to judge good and evil. And it requires that one pursue knowledge because one sees that correct ideas are indispensable to achieving the irreplaceable value of one's own life and happiness. "To take ideas seriously," Rand states, "means that you intend to live by, to practice, any idea you accept as true," that you recognize "that truth and knowledge are of crucial, personal, selfish importance to you and to your own life."

Her approach here is the opposite of the view that ideals transcend this world, one's interests and human comprehension--that idealism is, in the words of the religious exhortation to America's youth in Bush's inaugural address, "to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself."

The advice Rand offers the young? Think, reason, logically consider matters of truth and morality. And then, because your own life and happiness depend on it, pursue unwaveringly the true and the good. On this approach, the moral and the practical unite. On this approach, there exists no temptation to think that life on earth requires compromise, the halfway, the middle of the road. "In any compromise between food and poison," she writes, "it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

What My Government Spends My Money On

In today's TIA Daily, Robert Trancinski asserts that privatizing Social Security is the best possible opportunity to redefine the relationship between the government and the private citizen. Tracinski says that Social Security is the biggest single contributing factor to the size of the government, and privatizing Social Security would be the first step in eliminating the source of funds that keeps it going. This could start a domino effect, since privatizing Social Security could lead to privatizing Medicare, both of which take up a third of the federal budget. Once the cycle of altruism has been broken, it could lead to further cuts in welfare, both "social" and "corporate".

Here are the figures Tranciski bases his argument on. They are a breakdown of the projected Federal budget for 2005, from a government document at http://tinyurl.com/2hkqu.

Police, courts, and military: $600 billion
Debt service: $400 billion
Regulation: $50 billion
Subsidies: $240 billion
Welfare: $400 billion
Social Security and Medicare: $850 billion

Total projected Federal expenditures for 2005: $2.6 trillion

What Intelligence Needs

I came across the following quote in today's HBL and was so impressed by it that I wanted to pass it along. It's from a January 4 NY Post article by George Friedman and was sent in by a writer describing his experience in the intelligence community and his recognition that "intelligence failures" are a result of a culture that discourages people from raising their heads above the crowd:

"Porter Goss, the new head of the CIA, is cleaning house. He needs to remember one thing to be successful: The analyst has one primary virtue: courage. He is not afraid to stand alone, he does not need to be well liked, and he does not need the good fellowship of others. He needs to be right.... The Directorate of Intelligence can only fix itself if it prevents displays of courage from becoming acts of suicide. An institution that encourages brilliance, iconoclasm and courageous insights can save American lives."

Courage is a primary requirement of intelligence. Intelligence as such, not just the "military information" variety.

Methane on the rocks

I have seen the pictures sent back from Titan by Huygens via Cassini this week and all I can say is "WOW!"

It's strange that images that could be almost reassuringly familiar could actually depict such an alien reality. What at first glance seems like unremarkable shorelines and river deltas is made remarkable by the fact that the features in these images are on a very cold planet very much farther from the Sun than the Earth, and the features were formed by methane rain washing down over water ice.

Methane on the rocks, anyone?

Are they thinking?

A report in The Oklahoman notes that the State of Oklahoma is trying to attract a facility to "refurbish" tanker aircraft for Airbus. Yeah, right! Brilliant move. The Pentagon is going to really want to go with Boeing's biggest foriegn competitor to get tankers for America's military.

Ah, Oklahoma's "economic development" officials!

What a bunch of idiots!

Cannibalizing Kubrick

Taschen is coming out with The Stanley Kubrick Archives, a massive, image-heavy display of artifacts from Kubrick's personal collections. The book will be 544 pages long and cost $200!

While I'm sure the book will be a welcome addition to the literature on Kubrick and his films, I am horrified to see that Kubrick's own personal 70-millimeter print of 2001: A Space Odyssey - surely a priceless artifact by any standard - is being dismantled to provide a bonus to those who puchase a copy of the first print run, which will include a strip of 12 frames from that print. How does this show respect for Kubrick's legacy and a commitment to keeping it intact for future generations? I hope that people who are known for their commitment to preserving films, such as Martin Scorsese, get up in arms over this shocking practice.

Having said that, I just have to point out one astonishing image from Taschen's catalog entry on the book: it is from the scene near the end of 2001 in which Keir Dullea, playing the character of astronaut David Bowman, is standing in his space suit in an eerily-lit room full of period furniture and paintings. I could write a book about the layers of meaning in just this one image alone. But what makes the image - as included in The Stanley Kubrick Archives - all the more astonishing - even jarring! - is a hand intruding from the left edge of the frame, holding a clapboard with scene information written on it! Obviously, this image is taken from a frame at the beginning of that shot.

I have to say it again: astonishing!

Taxes, altruism and the Gazette

Richard Prawdzienski has a fine editorial printed in this week's Oklahoma Gazette. You can access it here:

tinyurl.com/4rz35

Or you can go to www.okgazette.com, roll your cursor down to News in the navigation bar on the left side, and click on Commentary. Richard's piece is below another piece.

Because I saw Richard's piece as a fine opportunity to say something about the relationship between morality and government in truly fundamental terms, I have sent the following letter to the editor in response. We'll see if they print it. I do want to point out one thing that I could have added but chose to leave out, and that is Ayn Rand's contention that in the battle to achieve true freedom - that is, complete laissez-faire capitalism - taxes would be the last detail that would need to be addressed. I don't for a moment think that she meant that one should never take the opportunity to do something about taxes if such an opportunity presented itself, however.

Re: A taxing situation

Kudos to Richard Prawdzienski for having the intellectual clarity required to recognize the true relationship between taxes and morality, and for having the courage to say something about it in public. Who will define and regulate kindness, indeed?

Too bad Prawdzienski didn't take his argument to the final step, by naming the ultimate cause of the situation, which is the bankrupt morality of altruism. Only a morality which demands that human beings place anyone - or thing - else but themselves first, a morality based on a view of human beings as helpless monsters which must be emasculated, chained and taken care of in order to prevent us from destroying each other, could justify the idea that some people should have the authority and power to tell other people what to do with their own money, property and lives. If such people are driven to regulate kindness, it can only be because they have no confidence that individual human beings are capable of kindness, when left to themselves.

If this view of human nature is as insulting to you as it is to me, ask yourself what that says about the true nature of altruism, and of those who profess to uphold it.

Rob Abiera

Update: January 21st -

Actually, on thinking about this piece a little bit more since I sent it off, I wish I had put a couple of things a little bit differently. I should have written:

Kudos to Richard Prawdzienski for having the intellectual clarity required to recognize that there is a relationship between taxes and morality

It was the fact that Richard focused on the relationship between taxes and morality that I was struck by in the first place. But Richard did not go all the way and identify the true nature of that relationship; however, he did set up what I saw as a perfect opportunity to provide that identification. Unfortunately I didn't give myself enough time to completely think that through before I sent the piece in.

And:

If this monstrous view of human nature is as insulting to you as it is to me,

I think these edits would have gotten my intended meaning across a little more clearly.

Today I got a phone call from the editor of the Gazette asking permission to print my letter!


Update: January 29th -

Well, I should have posted something on Wednesday, but I didn't get around to it. Anyway, my letter was printed in the January 26th edition! And it's the second one! Right after Joe Quigley, who is the lead letter this issue.

Augustine must be turning in his grave

In yesterday's TIA Daily, Robert Tracinski wrote about an article in Christianity Today: an interview with the author of a book about a survey of religious attitudes among American youth.

The following quote from that interview caught my eye:

"Based on our findings, I suggest that the de facto religious faith of the majority of American teens is 'Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.' God exists. God created the world. God set up some kind of moral structure. God wants me to be nice. He wants me to be pleasant, wants me to get along with people. That's teen morality. The purpose of life is to be happy and feel good, and good people go to heaven. And nearly everyone's good."

"And nearly everyone's good."

Well, it sure looks to me like Original Sin has been a huge failure!

Richard Land shoots himself in foot

Came across a post today on Bruce Prescott's blog about Southern Baptist Convention PAC head Richard Land. This statement struck me as a doozy:

'I've got more in common with Pope John Paul II than I do with Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.' . . . 'We both say all human life is sacred, that marriage is between a man and a woman, that homosexual behavior is contrary to God's will.' All this is just 'more relevant' he says, 'than whether I'm Catholic or Protestant.'

So, of course, I just had to comment on it. Here and here. (So it took me 2 entries to say what I wanted to say - hey, I'm new at this comments thing!)

Seriously, it really does look to me like he's saying that his beliefs - that "all human life is sacred, that marriage is between a man and a woman, that homosexual behavior is contrary to God's will", whatever - are ultimately more important than which version of the Bible he believes in. To me, this sounds awfully close to saying that his beliefs are more important than the Bible. If that's not what he is actually saying, outright.

So much for Biblical "inerrancy" and "infallibility"!

Really, now, just how strong can the Religious Right possibly be when its leaders indulge in bone-headedness like this? Now, of course, such a sentiment is to be expected from someone as obviously dictatorial as Land, but sometimes such people have the sense not to give themselves away like that in public. Unless, of course, they are so far gone that they think the public will follow whatever marching orders they care to dish out, regardless.

Finally, somebody stands up to Spitzer

Congratulations to the US Chamber of Commerce for showing that they have the cojones to expose Eliot Spitzer for what he really is: a vicious bully in the mold of Rudolph Giuliani, who started his career by destroying Michael Milken. As reported in today's TIA Daily:

New York State's economic dictator, attorney general Eliot Spitzer, has so intimidated New York corporations that he faces little home-grown opposition in his bid for the governorship. Fortunately, the US Chamber of Commerce has decided to launch a campaign against him, exposing his shakedown tactics against American businesses. The Chamber is also launching a welcome (but rather timid) campaign to roll back some of the draconian controls passed during the Enron hysteria. Thanks to TIA Daily reader Josh Aaron for recommending this link.

http://tinyurl.com/5cqlh

"US Group Is Taking on Spitzer," Bloomberg via International Herald Tribune, January 5"

'Spitzer's approach is to walk in and say, "we're going to make a deal, and you're going to pay $600 million to the state, and you're going to get rid of this person and that person, and if you don't do it by tonight, we're going to indict the company." ' Donohue said. 'It is the most egregious and unacceptable form of intimidation we've seen in this country in modern times.' The New York regulator's initiative against trading abuses within the mutual fund industry led to settlements totaling more than $3 billion in penalties, restitution, and fee cuts. Spitzer's office is now investigating allegations of collusion among insurers. The chamber also plans to fight efforts by institutional investors and labor unions to allow shareholder nominees on corporate proxy ballots, and will encourage Congress to amend the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance law, Donohue said."

Ayn Rand and Fred Phelps?

The following appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Monday. It's from James Taranto's "Best of The Web" column. For those of you who may not be familiar with Westboro Baptist Church, it is the home base of Topeka, Kansas's own Fred Phelps - if that name does not ring a bell, visit http://www.godhatesfags.com/. Be warned: you may want to wash your computer - and yourself - afterward.

That Taranto is even mentioning the Ayn Rand Institute and Westboro Baptist in the same paragraph is outrageous. That he may be implying that the two are in any way morally equivalent is monstrous.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006106&ojrss=wsj

Idiotarian Tidal Wave

Tsunami news got you down? The Ayn Rand Institute come to the rescue with some comic relief, an article titled "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims" by David Holcberg:

Every cent the government spends comes from taxation. Every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first. . . . The question no one asks about our politicians'"generosity" towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?

The funniest part, though, is the opening paragraph:

As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.

Which of the tsunami victims are at fault for their suffering? That would be the Swedes, according to an outfit called the Westboro Baptist Church (motto: "God hates fags"). "Thank God for Tsunami & 2,000 dead Swedes!!!" declares a Dec. 29 news release from the group, which refers to Sweden as "land of the sodomite damned." Well, maybe every tsunami has a silver lining, but what about the 148,000-plus dead non-Swedes? Can't God do a better job of avoiding collateral damage?

To be fair, the Ayn Rand Institute takes the position that "government should not have the power to legislate morality," which would seem to be at odds with the Westboro view of homosexuality. But Sweden does have very high taxes and other socialist economic policies of which Ayn Rand definitely wouldn't approve.

The way I feel sometimes

The businessmen he met seemed to wish to evade the subject of his trial. Some made no comment at all, but turned away, their faces showing a peculiar resentment under the effort to appear non-committal, as if they feared that the mere act of looking at him would be interpreted as taking a stand. Others ventured to comment: "In my opinion, Rearden, it was extremely unwise of you. . . . It seems to me that this is hardly the time to make enemies. . . . We can't afford to arouse resentment."

"Whose resentment?" he asked.

"I don't think the government will like it."

"You saw the consequences of that."

"Well, I don't know . . . The public won't take it, there's bound to be a lot of indignation."

"You saw how the public took it."

"Well, I don't know . . . We've been trying hard not to give any grounds for all those accusations about selfish greed--and you've given ammunition to the enemy."

"Would you rather agree with the enemy that you have no right to your profits and your property?"

"Oh, no, no, certainly not--but why go to extremes? There's always a middle ground."

"A middle ground between you and your murderers?"

"Now why use such words?"

"What I said at the trial, was it true or not?"

"It's going to be misquoted and misunderstood."

"Was it true or not?"

"The public is too dumb to grapple with such issues."

"Was it true or not?"

"It's no time to boast about being rich--when the populace is starving. It's just goading them on to seize everything."

"But telling them that you have no right to your wealth, while they have--is what's going to restrain them?"

"Well, I don't know . . ."

"I don't like the things you said at your trial," said another man. "In my opinion, I don't agree with you at all. Personally, I'm proud to believe that I am working for the public good, not just for my own profit. I like to think that I have some goal higher than just earning my three meals a day and my Hammond limousine."

"And I don't like that idea about no directives and no controls," said another. "I grant you they're running hog-wild and overdoing it. But--no controls at all? I don't go along with that. I think some controls are necessary. The ones which are for the public good."

"I am sorry, gentlemen," said Rearden, "that I will be obliged to save your goddamn necks along with mine."