Abandon Caution

Far and Away

2007-06-02T15:15:00.000-05:00

Posting will be sparse for now, as I will have limited computer access. I hope everyone is enjoying their summer. Tah for now!

Yaron Brook on Dennis Miller Radio

2007-05-22T17:01:00.000-05:00

Via Rational Jenn, Yaron Brook, President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute, got to speak on the Dennis Miller Show today for about 10 minutes. You can skip ahead to 1:14:00 in the program where Miller prefaces his talk with Brook with a quote from Rand about environmentalism from The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. Then skip forward to 1:22:00 where the actual interview begins.

Review of John Lewis' Solon the Thinker

2007-05-22T15:15:00.000-05:00

The Bryn Mawr Classical Review specializes in the review of scholarly works in the field of classical studies. They recently picked up John Lewis' Solon the Thinker: Political Thought in Archaic Athens and wrote about what they had to say regarding his work.

Read Zinon Papakonstantinou's review here.

From a non-academic perspective, as I read Papakonstantinou's review, I can sympathize with Ari Armstrong's sentiment as he talked about Lewis' use of the Greek vocabulary.

I also wish the book had included a more complete glossary of Greek terms. The limited glossary is invaluable for readers who don't know Greek, but often I found myself flipping back several pages to remind myself of the meaning of a term excluded from the glossary.

Being that this is a scholarly review with a focus towards specialists in the field one shouldn't be surprised to see such terms as noos, koros, hubris, and dikê used with the assumption that the reader is acquainted with their usage and meaning. I myself haven't yet had the chance to read Lewis' work but it's definitely on my list. After reading the review I have to agree with the reviewer's evaluation that "this is nevertheless a contribution that will find its place in the ongoing scholarly debates on Solon and archaic political thought."

CBC: Doomsday Called Off

2007-05-21T15:35:00.000-05:00

Aired in November 2005, this documentary by the CBC entitled, Doomsday Called Off, shows scientists from around the world sharing real data and statistics refuting claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concerning man’s role in warming the planet.

Link to full video. (Google Video)
Video in parts 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5. (YouTube)

Exposed: The Climate of Fear

2007-05-21T01:45:00.000-05:00

On May 2nd, Glenn Beck did an exposé aptly entitled, Exposed: The Climate of Fear. It makes many good points on several issues, like how climate scientists are being kept silent for fear of losing their jobs. The main portion of the exposé goes about illustrating why Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is deliberately misleading in its predictions on global warming effects and how it distorts current science to fit Gore's preconceived solution of government power grabs. Truly, Gore's film is a work of propaganda.

Here is Beck's program, running time 42 minutes.

The One Minute Case for...

2007-05-20T15:25:00.000-05:00

Via David over at Truth, Justice, and the American Way comes a new collaborative blog called The One Minute Case.... What's it all about? From the "About" page:

The One Minute Case will present a brief argument about a controversial issue that can be read in under a minute. The goal is to publish one case per day. You can read the cases to learn something new about an issue or use use them as starter for longer arguments.

They've already got some issues already up for you to read. You can even contribute to this blog yourself by registering on the site and a submitting a case (such as one of the proposed topics) as a comment or email. Sounds easy enough, why not give it a try?

Armed Forces Day

2007-05-19T15:15:00.000-05:00

On this third Saturday of May, I'd like to extend my gratitude to all those in our Armed Forces. It is no easy task that our military men and women risk their lives every day to preserve our highest of values as a nation: freedom. Such dedication in the face of great conflict should be praised in all occasions as profoundly selfish. It demands of all those who serve the recognition that a free nation requires individual heroes to protect her, thank you.

"It is fitting and proper that we devote one day each year to paying special tribute to those whose constancy and courage constitute one of the bulwarks guarding the freedom of this nation and the peace of the free world." President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

Neither Liberals nor Conservatives Support Our Troops:

[N]either liberals nor conservatives truly support the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend America. For both, "support our troops" is a cheap, undeserved claim to patriotism—one that obscures their unwillingness to do what is truly necessary to protect America and its soldiers.
...
One does not support our troops by sending them to fight wars of self-sacrifice and then thanking their corpses. The conservatives' call to "stay the course" in Iraq—or to add 20,000 troops to that course—is harmful to America and its troops because the mission has been conceived and conducted in defiance of American interests.
...
One does not support our troops by keeping them home when their and our freedom requires military action. Our soldiers did not join the military to sit on their hands while Iran prepares for nuclear jihad.
...
Liberals oppose the Iraq war and other wars, not because they truly value our soldiers, but because they—like the conservatives—oppose our soldiers mounting an uncompromising, self-assertive defense of America. But such a defense is required to defeat the threat of Islamic totalitarianism. We must adopt a foreign policy of self-interest and commit to defend ourselves using our full, unmatched military might. Neither the conservatives nor the liberals support this, and thus they end up sacrificing our troops and our freedom. [emphasis added]

The above article should be required reading, read it all.
Also see Cox & Forkum celebrate Armed Forces Day.

Enemies of Christopher Columbus

2007-05-18T18:50:00.000-05:00

Columbus Day is observed on the second Monday in October and although it isn't Columbus Day yet I thought I'd share with you this short sample video (real player) of Thomas Bowden discussing his book The Enemies of Christopher Columbus.

I've been meaning to get this for some time now (anyone care to donate on my behalf?). More and more Columbus is smeared by multiculturalists as a genocidal imperialist. Bowden doesn't see it that way and presents the case in Columbus' defense. From the description of the book:

Was Christopher Columbus a hero or a villain? Was he a brave explorer whose discovery of the New World helped civilize a savage wilderness—or was he a poor lost sailor who stumbled onto occupied territory and helped destroy an Indian paradise?

The Enemies of Christopher Columbus, written in a brisk, question-and-answer format, provides lucid responses to the "politically correct" primitivists who condemn Columbus for having brought civilization to the Western hemisphere.

This new book shows that, contrary to the myths spread by multiculturalism, American Indians did not live in an earthly paradise before Columbus arrived—they were poor, ignorant, scared, superstitious, and cruel. This was not due to any racial or ethnic inferiority but to a lack of civilization. The spread of Western values not only brought enormous new opportunities to the Indians but led eventually to the birth of the United States of America, the greatest nation in world history, where people of every race and ethnicity can live together in peace and prosperity.

This volume also includes excerpts from notable writers such as Washington Irving, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, and Thomas Jefferson, whose views (unvarnished by "political correctness") on Columbus and on the Indians may startle the modern reader.

Scientists Change Views on Man-Made Warming

2007-05-18T02:10:00.000-05:00

An increasing number of scientists studying in the field of global warming are beginning to second guess their initial positions on the commonly held view that global warming is being caused by anthropogenic effects - mainly industrial production of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.

Listed are thirteen scientists in varying fields which discuss their experience with the "accuracy" of climate science. I recommend you read all their respective backgrounds as they present the information that the media ignore, mainly because it's not sensationalist and can't be covered in a sound bite. To give you a sample:

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledges the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote. [bold added]

Miller Puts the Nail in Design's Coffin

2007-05-17T20:07:00.000-05:00

Kenneth Miller is a prominent biology professor at Brown University who has become known for his defense of evolution and opposition towards the religious façade promoted by creationism and more recently intelligent design. He gained recent recognition when the school board of Cobb County, Georgia decided to put an evolutionary disclaimer sticker on their biology textbook, which was authored by Miller, stating:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

This went to court (Selman v. Cobb County School District) and was initially decided in favor of the plaintiffs and against the sticker. It went through appeals but in 2006 was finally settled out of court in favor of the plaintiffs once again. Miller was one of the expert witnesses who presented testimony to the effect of evolution's validity.

Another more recent court case that was settled before Selman was and received national attention was the 2005 decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. This was an attempt by the Dover school board to have teachers incorporate what they called "intelligent design" into the curriculum. Kenneth Miller was the prosecution's lead expert witness in this case. In the end the judge found intelligent design to be nothing more than creationism's offspring and therefore unconstitutional to teach in schools. Taken from the court's decision:

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. (page 137) [emphasis added]

The reason I mention all this is because I recently came across a lecture Miller gave at Case Western Reserve University a little over a year ago on January 3, 2006. In it, Miller details current evidence to support the theory of evolution. Among such evidence was the recent discovery that the number of human chromosomes (23 pairs) is a result of a pair of ape chromosomes (24 pairs) which had merged together. They were even able to decipher that it was the human chromosome 2 that was the result of the ape merger.

What surprised me in the beginning was how he actually explained that anti-evolutionts were not proponents of science because their foundation is based upon religion. I already knew this fact but what surprised me was that he went on to do what most forget to. He explained what science was and the requirements to test its validity. From his explanation one could then only understand science to be that which studies reality and leaves no room for the supernatural.

Miller goes on to recount his experience refuting intelligent design and the incomprehensibility of their argument. Miller, in essence puts the proverbial nail in the coffin of intelligent design. The lecture is definitely worth watching. The video above is close to two hours but Miller's lecture only comprises the first hour. Miller's lecture is purely a scientific examination on the evidence supporting evolution and so does not get into any philosophic discussion. A caveat of mine as you watch the lecture: The lecture leads off with a prayer asking God to lend his assistance as the attendees discuss the topic of evolution and science in general. Miller also presents himself as a religious scientist. I would advise against making the assumption then that faith and reason were compatible. Miller's personal experience merely represents the partition of the two, to the extent of which he assents, in his cognitive faculty.

Nightline Face-Off - Does God Exist?

2007-05-11T18:15:00.000-05:00

Via Goosing the Antithesis, ABC's Nightline recently featured the first in a series of debates for their Face-Off specials. This debate was on the subject of religion and more specifically whether or not God can be proven to exist. Who did they get to debate this issue you ask? For the theist side was Ray Comfort and former Growing Pains actor Kirk Cameron. These are the same people claiming bananas to be the atheist's nightmare and they have put together their own program for spreading evangelism called The Way of the Master. For the atheist side was Brian Sapient and his colleague Kelly from the Rational Response Squad. The RRS has made somewhat a name for themselves by encouraging people to take the blasphemy challenge.

To save you all the time, I'll just say that Comfort and Cameron failed at their task. Of course to all those who understand the universe to be a rationally observable reality this comes as no surprise. After centuries of religious domination and influence and even during the period of Religion's culmination (the Dark Ages) no proof of God's existence has been brought forward and none ever will.

Throughout the video it is evident that Comfort is no intellectual. In the same breath that he promises us not to use the Bible or argue from faith he does just that and continues to do so for the entire debate. From his manner of argumentation you can see that this issue stems from Comfort's ignorance on the very subject of faith and its definition. For an outspoken man of faith to not even know what faith really requires from its observer is astonishing. It's as if his education had stagnated since the fifth grade. For some clarity let's examine what philosopher Ayn Rand said was the essence of faith:

Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing." [emphasis original]

The importance of Rand's observation lies in her distinction between the real and non-real. The real is the observable. To see the real all that is required is the use of one's senses. On the other hand, the non-real is the unobservable. To make claim to the unobservable requires man to deny his senses for some other non-rational means of knowledge that is not given by man's nature as a rational animal, i.e., faith. Comfort's abusive equivocation on this matter was evident every time he called into question the atheist validity. For him, learning about history or scientific laws is the same when taken on faith or when it's accounted for as an independent observation of reality.

His counterpart, Cameron, didn't provide any insight either to the discussion. His presence there seemed to be just for parroting Comfort but with more evangelist dressing to it. In his opening remarks, Cameron demonstrated his complete ignorance of the subject matter as he followed his mentor's lead. In those remarks he relates to the audience that he was once an atheist who has since found religion. The problem though is that he equates atheism with evolution. "[A]s a former atheist myself-an evolutionist-..." This should be avoided since atheism in essence has nothing to do with evolution. It doesn't for an individual to assent to evolution or not to be an atheist as there have been atheist prior to Darwin's theory of natural selection. There are many more good arguments taken from a metaphysical and epistemological standpoint to prove that God doesn't exist.

For the atheist side, I wouldn't give them a free pass. They made several arguments I found to be utterly weak and never really correct Comfort on his position of faith. They simply assumed that the audience understood why he was wrong. In a debate setting, correction your opponent's false premise should be key since it would stop them from making similar arguments along those lines. Their statements for a substitute to the morality provided by religious dogma were also egregious since they simply wished to replace God with society.

If you're looking for an intellectual debate on the non-existence of God you won't find it here. This is Nightline we're talking about here. I can't say I watch Nightline too often so its not to smear Nightline's reputation as a responsible media source. It's to merely recognize that such a intricate discussion on the impossibility of God can't be settled by such a setting. It's also reasonable to say that since Comfort and Cameron are by no stretch of the imagination influential intellectuals they can be viewed as merely God's foot soldiers. If we aim to refute their ideas we should cut them off at the root. We need to focus our attention at their intellectual foundation to show them for what they really are. Onward, Christian Soldiers no more; Stand Up for Reason.

Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief

2007-05-11T16:05:00.000-05:00

Follow here for Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Because the very topic of atheism presupposes the idea of theism, it would be altogether impossible to discuss a history of the origins of atheism purely without the origins of theism and atheism's subsequent outgrowth of it.

Dr. Jonathan Miller put together such a retelling in his documentary, Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief. Overall it had some interesting facts on different intellectuals contribution to the subject as he journeyed from country to country. There were also some probing quotes used throughout to highlight these thinkers orientation.

I wouldn't say there was too much to take away from the documentary. It more or less leaves you with the feeling of, "Hmmm, that's nice". The first part was a little "rough" for my taste but the other two parts have a little smoother feel to them as far as merit goes. In case you're wondering, he does concede the issue of Soviet Russia being an atheistic nation. I was disappointed by this error on his part since it only gives credence to more revisionist history. I remember that Dr. Yaron Brook was asked this issue in the Q&A session of the panel discussion Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons held at the University of Southern California.

John Lewis Lecture Available

2007-05-01T23:19:00.000-05:00

Dr. John Lewis' lecture at GMU, "'No Substitute for Victory:' The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism" is now available for listening on the events page at The Objective Standard.

Follow here to listen to Lewis' lecture.

Natural Cycles Affect Climate

2007-05-01T19:30:00.000-05:00

Natural weather cycles have been hypothesized and even shown in certain cases to be contributors affecting the Earth's complex climate. These range from the recent theory that variation in the sun's radiation has provided the basis for Earth's very climate to the cycles exhibited by El Niño and Atlantic hurricanes.

There is consensus among NOAA hurricane researchers and forecasters that recent increases in hurricane activity are primarily the result of natural fluctuations in the tropical climate system known as the tropical multi-decadal signal. The tropical climate patterns now favoring very active hurricane seasons are similar to those seen in the late 1920s to the late 1960s. The current active hurricane era began in 1995, meaning the nation is now 11 years into an active era that could easily last several decades (20-30 years or even longer). We can expect ongoing high levels of hurricane activity — and very importantly high levels of hurricane landfalls — as long as the active era continues.

Along the same lines, researchers have found a connection between Northern and Southern Atlantic Ocean circulation and a natural "seesaw" pattern of climate.

After the end of the last Glacial both Hemispheres became warmer as a result of melting ice sheets, but during the last 9000 years we can identify a persistent "seesaw" pattern. When the South Atlantic was warm it was cold in the North Atlantic and vice versa.

...

Our results from Nightingale Island in the Tristan da Cunha island group, between South Africa and Argentina, for the first time give evidence of warming of the South Atlantic associated with cooling in the north. This is a major breakthrough in palaeoclimate research.

Given the preponderance of these natural cycles being shown to affect localized areas around the globe, isn't it about time for a real look at other theories that ignore this fact. Of course I'm talking about the anthropogenic climate change theory caused by increased in carbon dioxide emissions. Even though carbon dioxide is only a small contributor to whole of greenhouse gases politicians have focused on this molecule. Why is that? Probably because water vapor (the most abundant greenhouse gas) is something that can't be controlled and nobody is going to listen to a politician calling for the explicit destruction of civilization. The solution: damn carbon dioxide since we expel it anyway, we don't need it say the politicians.

The problem is that you're not going to get a fair discussion on climate science while politicians are writing the checks in government, i.e., all means of scientific inquiry are open to free individuals and not subject to political pull or censorship. When science is not directed by the pursuit of independent minds but rather by wetting one's finger and checking the political air for the best wave of support you can be sure that all will suffer the consequences. Just as government shouldn't fund public media it shouldn't be funding science either.

John Lewis and the GMU Fallout

2007-04-30T01:58:00.000-05:00

After Dr. John Lewis was rudely uninvited to give his lecture, "'No Substitute for Victory:' The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism" based on his article from The Objective Standard of the same title, he was finally able to get reinvited with the help of the GMU College Republicans who sponsored the event along with the GMU Objectivist Club.

Given this span of time in which to prepare for the lecture, it no doubt allowed other groups, who stated beforehand their opposition to Dr. Lewis' presence on campus, to think of ways to block the free spread of ideas in an institution who's purpose is the dissemination and respect for knowledge. Such contradictions didn't stand in their way. They were going to have their say one way or another. This mentality is what is seriously wrong with college campuses around the country and George Mason University is only a small representation of a wider problem.

The events of the lecture itself have been sufficiently handled by Nicholas Provenzo here and here. Be sure to read the comments in those posts as well since they also elaborate from spectators who were there. Also, you can read about the event from the perspective of GMU BroadsideOnline editor John Grimsley with his article, "No Substitute for Conflict".

Straight From the Horse's Mouth

2007-04-29T23:10:00.000-05:00

Via LGF comes a video of Abu Izzadeen speaking inside the Regent’s Park Mosque, followed by MPACUK’s reaction to his recent arrest for insighting terrorism. What you'll hear is the honest preaching of a Muslim convert who is not afraid to be consistent in his ideology. He makes no hesitation in clarifying for all those who might believe otherwise that Islam, i.e., religious faith, must be spread by force.

Here's a few highlights said by Izzadeen:

"He must support the jihad physically or financially or verbally."
"They want Islam to become love and peace. No my dear Muslim brothers. Islam come to dominate the world."
"Terrorism is part and parcel of Islam. Terrorism is part of the dean[?] of Islam."

Dr. Peikoff on KVRX

2007-04-29T09:02:00.000-05:00

Via Dollars & Crosses, Dr. Peikoff will be interviewed on Austin, Texas, radio station KVRX, 91.7 FM, on Monday, April 30, at 8:00 PM central time. KVRX is a student radio station at the University of Texas. Dr. Peikoff will be on "The Kumar Abhinov Show." Live audiostreaming can be accessed at http://kvrx.org/.

Andrea Chénier

2007-04-29T03:10:00.000-05:00

This opera first performed in Milan 1896 "is a fiery verisimo work very loosely based on the life and writings of a French poet who was guillotined during the French Revolution."

The tale set against this backdrop is a love story between Chénier and Maddalena. Gérard is in love with Maddalena; in order to get her for himself, he has Chénier arrested. The aria in which he makes this fateful decision is one of the most dramatic in the baritone repertoire: He cynically writes the accusations he knows to be false, then remembers how Chénier himself inspired his now-tarnished revolutionary zeal. Upon learning of Chénier's arrest, Maddalena comes to Gérard for help, telling him of the death of her mother, the loss of her home, and how Chénier's love transformed her life. Though Gérard tries to save Chénier, the hero is condemned at the the corrupt trial, and Maddalena joins him in the prison so that they can die together. Link

The aria that I have found to be the most dramatic and expressive is the one in which Maddalena goes to Gérard and tells of her mother's death ("La Mamma Morta"). The part of Maddalena di Coigny is played by Maria Callas.

As I made mention of a previous aria used in the movies, this too was used in a movie, Philadelphia. Tom Hanks' character (Andrew Beckett) is dying of AIDS and is discussing his trial with Denzel Washington (Joe Miller).

View the scene here.

Hanks does a wonderful job of highlighting the sorrow in the voice of Callas. While telling of the stylistic changes throughout the song we begin to understand the highly integrated thematic portrayal of Maddalena's struggle and desire to save the life of the one she loves.

Faith and Force as Proven Corollaries

2007-04-28T21:40:00.000-05:00

Brian Schwartz, via FRODO (Front Range Objectivist Discussion Online), points to a recent study aimed at finding out whether or not religious sanction of violent actions leads to aggressive nature in individuals.

The article, entitled "When God Sanctions Killing: Effect of Scriptural Violence on Aggression", describes how they first split the hundreds of participants into two groups. The first group came from Brigham Young University where 99% stated they believe in God and the Bible. The second group, made up of Dutch students from Vrije University, included 40% non-religious affiliation and the rest consisting of 18% Catholic, 11% Protestant, 12% Muslim, 8% Christian, 2% Hindu, 1% Jewish, and 8% other; 50% said they believed in God, and 27% said they believed in the Bible.

Beforehand the students had read a passage from the Book of Judges in the Old Testament. One half was told it came from Judges while the other half was told it came from an ancient archaeological scroll found in 1984. The students where told a story in which a mob had raped and beaten to death a woman. As a result, the town had to decided what was to be done to those who committed this crime. Inserted in the story for the first half was a passage whose basis came from the Judges passage telling the town to kill those responsible. Thus the students read that God had sanctioned violence against the murder of the woman. The other half were not given this part of the story. Their story simply continued with the town decimating the neighboring town and killing all its inhabitants with no mention of religious sanction.

To test the students response to this reading they were told they were to participate in a time task in which they and their partners would have to press a button as fast as possible. The slower of the two would receive a blast of noise through headphones at a specific level prescribed beforehand by their respective partner ranging from 60 to 105 dB.

Overall, the most aggression was shown by those students who read the bible passage that included God sanctioning violence, and furthermore, among that group, it was those who said they believed in God and the Bible who were most aggressive.

"Even among our participants who were not religiously devout, exposure to God-sanctioned violence increased subsequent aggression. That the effect was found in such a sample may attest to the insidious power of exposure to literary scriptural violence."

The study, however, fails in regards to the information one can take away from this experiment. In its non-judgmental approach it cites The Atlantic Monthly when it states:

Does this ultimately mean that one should avoid reading religious canon for fear that the violent episodes contained therein will cause one to become more aggressive, or that individuals who read the scriptures will become aggressive? Not necessarily. Violent stories that teach moral lessons or that are balanced with descriptions of victims' suffering or the aggressor's remorse can teach important lessons and have legitimate artistic merit (e.g., Stossel, 1997). [citation on study page, added link to May 1997 contents page at The Atlantic Monthly]

The Stossel citation deals with George Gerbner and his work on television and violence. Why is this important? Because, citations like these fail when they forget to make clear the main distinction between the information entailed in the citation and the information detailed in the study itself, thereby blurring one's understanding. The study's main focus was on finding if there was a link between violence and religious sanction of that violence. In other words, does faith necessarily lead to force?

In her article "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World", Ayn Rand described mysticism, i.e., faith, as follows:

Mysticism is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one's senses and one's reason. Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing." [emphasis original]

She goes on to explain later in the article:

I have said that faith and force are corollaries, and that mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication, or understanding are possible. [emphasis original]

As the study shows, out of context references to religious sanction can lead to aggression and violence. However, this should not be used to whitewash religion as benign since you can pick out anything you want from the Bible because it so so contradictory. On the question of religion's fundamental nature this is something that psychology could not attempt to explain. Understanding fundamentals in the field of ideas is the realm of philosophy and can only be explained by reference to a rational standard. Since religion denies such a reference and makes claim to the supernatural it will inevitably lead to violence if practiced consistently as Ayn Rand illustrated.

Relentless Obsession: Documentaries on Islamism

2007-04-26T15:20:00.000-05:00

I may be behind the times on this one but the following is still relevant to today's discussion of the threat posed by Islamic Totalitarianism.

I came across a documentary recently entitled, "Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East". It's a 2003 film directed by Wayne Kopping. In it, the documentary discusses the Israeli/Palestinian conflict with much emphasis on the Oslo Accords and a point by point analysis of how the Palestinians failed to adhere to the agreed terms in the Accords even to the point of using "peace" as a weapon against Israel. The Palestinian methods of suicide bombings, child propaganda, and the open celebration of murder in their culture is utterly horrific and is detailed in the films account. One such example is of a walk-through "art" exhibit made by Palestinians of a pizzeria suicide bombing in 2001 (~min. 42 in film). This film makes real the results brought about by a culture's view of life based upon the death premise i.e., to be motivated by the destruction of the values that make life possible. For further insight into the death premise see Onkar Ghate's essay "The Death Premise in We the Living and Atlas Shrugged" in Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living.

Seeing as this was a documentary meant to put forth the events that led to present day Israel and not an editorialization I can understand why the film made no warning of compromising with your enemies. Since the act of compromise on issues of fundamentals between good and evil only lead to the benefit of evil it should be stated in no uncertain terms that such actions will not be taken by any government that respects individual rights. However, it is my opinion that the film loses much of its sting when at the end of the documentary, after a mother who lost her son to a suicide bomber says that the fighting will not end until the world stands up and fights terror, we are given this quote by President John F. Kennedy: "Peace does not lie in charters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of the people." This was definitely poor judgment on the filmmakers part and should be an affront to all those who realize that the initiation of force should be met with force, as the mother stated, not with diplomatic overtures.

The second film is called Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West directed by the same Wayne Kopping in 2005. Apparently the film was on YouTube for a while when it was first heard of on the web but was quickly taken down as it violated copyright. I'm not sure why the previous documentary is viewable for that matter and yet there it is. As such, I have not seen it myself but it is described on the site as

Using images from Arab TV, rarely seen in the West, Obsession reveals an ‘insider's view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. With the help of experts, including first-hand accounts from a former PLO terrorist, a Nazi youth commander, and the daughter of a martyred guerilla leader, the film shows, clearly, that the threat is real.

Related to this are clips from Islam: What the West Needs to Know over at Student of Objectivism.

The Marriage of Figaro

2007-04-25T14:25:00.000-05:00

I thought I might quickly share with you some truly beautiful singing. It comes from Mozart's opera, The Marriage of Figaro and is taken from the aria in the 3rd act entitled, "Duettino - Sull'aria". You might recognize it from the movie The Shawshank Redemption when Tim Robbins' character, "Andy Dufresne" plays a record of it over the loud speakers of the prison yard. Of course that version was sung by Edith Mathis and Gundula Janowitz.

Dame Kiri Te Kanawa & Ileana Cotrubas

Eric Daniels to Speak Bostonian

2007-04-15T00:55:00.000-05:00

Find out if he will be pahking his cah in Hahvihd Yahd. My guess, probably not since he'll actually be at Tufts University giving his lecture:

The Morality of Capitalism

Who: Dr. Eric Daniels, speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute

What: A talk explaining why capitalism is the only moral social system

When: Monday, April 16, at 7:30 PM

Where: Tufts University, Barnum 104, 163 Packard Avenue, Medford, MA 02155

Admission is FREE.

Description: Despite the enormous success of American capitalism at producing material abundance and political freedom, critics continue their assault on the system, calling it immoral. In this lecture, Dr. Eric Daniels makes the case that capitalism is the only moral social system. He also examines the conventional defense of capitalism, which relies on the practical, economic argument, and illustrates why only a defense of pure laissez-faire capitalism can succeed.

Bio: Dr. Eric Daniels is a visiting scholar at Clemson University's Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He taught for five years at Duke University, in the Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace, and at the University of Wisconsin, where he earned his doctorate in American history. He has lectured internationally on the history of American ethics, American business and legal history, and the American Enlightenment. Daniels's publications include a chapter in "The Abolition of Antitrust" and five entries in the "Oxford Companion to United States History."

I recently purchased Eric Daniels' entire lecture series on The History of America. I've only made it through part 1 (1607-1763) so far and from what I can tell Dr. Daniels is a great speaker, able to present the key events in a logical fashion. By presenting these historical events in their respective context he is able to explain the ideas that lead to them. Understood in this manner it is not hard to see how man is an integrated whole, mind and body, where actions follow from the ideas that give rise to them. I'm sure if there were philosophy classes in high school and those classes were teaching a rational basis of man's knowledge there would be more respect and a heightened interest in all other subject matter including history.

The ARI Wrap Up

2007-04-15T00:15:00.000-05:00

Some interesting new finds at the Ayn Rand Institute:

The first site is designed to introduce new readers, specifically students, to the novels and ideas of Ayn Rand. It provides an essentialized, easy to view guide for users to navigate and explore. It features most of the same content that is presented on the Institute's site but there is also some new features as well. A couple such features include a look at why her philosophy is unique, differing from all other philosophies before it and a look at her unique novels . A section discussing her approach to philosophy:

To most modern philosophers philosophy is disconnected from life—nothing more than an analysis of language, or speculation about the unknowable, or an intellectual game—which is why most people think philosophy is “just a lot of theory” (i.e., a waste of time).

To Ayn Rand, by contrast, philosophy is a matter of life and death. On her view, philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man’s relationship to existence. “A philosophy,” such as Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, is a systematic, integrated view of existence—what used to be called “a philosophy of life.” Far from being a useless game, philosophy, to Ayn Rand, is the determining factor in an individual’s character and happiness and in every aspect of a culture, including history, politics, education. Philosophic ideas are important because one’s life is important, and philosophy is a practical necessity for living.[emphasis added]

It is exactly this approach and the certainty with which Ayn Rand conveys it that attracts so many individuals to her philosophy and view of life.

The second site is actually a part of all those mail-in inserts found in all of Ayn Rand's books. It takes you to a single page informational request form as part of the ARI. But the kicker is that you can receive a free audiocassette copy of Ayn Rand's address given to the USMA graduating class at West Point, entitled "Philosophy: Who Needs It".

The last link refers to the panel discussion I mentioned previously. Those at the ARI seem to be making an exception in this instance by providing this streaming lecture available to everyone even if you're not a registered user. Considering the nature of the lecture and its widespread mention in the blogosphere this seems rather apt. But of course I must invite any non-registered visitors to take the time to register. There are many more valuable lectures available on that page.

Updates: minor grammatical errors

GoodSearch: Donate By the Keystroke

2007-04-14T22:20:00.000-05:00

As many people before have pointed out, I went to the GoodSearch search page to check things out and see what all the talk was about. Mike's Eyes urges all to make this unique site their primary search engine.

The way they hope to draw people in and utilize their search engine is the prospect of helping out their favorite charity/organization. By performing a single search you can help out your organization. Every search you perform GoodSearch agrees to make a 1 cent donation. Being the biased person I am I chose the Ayn Rand Institute as my favorite organization and the searches appear to be adding up. Under the charity/organization you choose you can follow its yearly and even monthly progress by clicking on the "Amount Raised" button.

I also went ahead and added a GoodSearch logo button to the side bar with the ARI charity ID attached to it. That means anyone who wants to perform a search can simply click on that link and search right away without having to select the ARI beforehand. Just thought I'd simplify things for all my readers out there.

I've been using GoodSearch for the past few days now and I'm pretty satisfied with the results. It's powered by Yahoo! so it's not some unknown search engine with limited reliability. Before I was using Google, or as our Commander-in-Chief likes to say "the Google", so it took me a little effort to get used to the different color scheme but it didn't take much to get used to again. Plus it's pretty much the same layout as Google so it shouldn't be that hard to switch over for other users. I like the fact that you have the option to use a built-in toolbar for your own web browser that they provide. Of course I might have to go over to Google to use some of their features such as narrowing my search to specific media, e.g., news or blogs.

All in all I'm pleased with GoodSearch and its ability to enable its users a way in which to donate to their most valued organizations especially the Ayn Rand Institute. In today's current climate, nothing could be more selfish than donating to the ARI.

The Egg Hunt Begins at 14:00

2007-04-08T18:50:00.000-05:00

Think you know about the 10 Commandments? Guess again.

Don't forget to check out Glen & Gary and Glen & Ross and Must Love Jaws. Even though they're not easter related they're still pretty funny. Enjoy!

Thinning the Paint Herd

2007-04-08T01:05:00.000-05:00

Johnathan Alder over at The Volokh Conspiracy points to Ohio's latest attempt to out do itself in expanding government powers.

Isn't there a statute of limitations on such litigation? Although it might not be so simple and may have something to do with a similar case in Rhode Island:

The Ohio litigation follows a state court verdict in Rhode Island in 2005 that found three defendants, including Sherwin-Williams, responsible for lead hazards in an estimated 240,000 homes. The verdict, based on the same theory now being tried in Ohio, has been appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

As well as recent legislation in Ohio that would appear to nullify any concern for a time limitation.

Under S.B. 117, individuals who are harmed by lead-based paint can still sue the paint manufacturers

Being a native Ohioan, its not surprising to hear stuff like this and that's what is disheartening. It was some time ago, but you couldn't turn on the news without hearing about our own Governor being convicted of ethics violations and the infamous Coingate scandal. It's a good thing state politics doesn't interest me all that much.

Couch Potatoes Unite!

2007-04-07T01:30:00.000-05:00

Television made its way onto the American scene on April 7, 1927 thereby changing the way in which we view the world.

[A] group of newspaper reporters and dignitaries gathered at the AT&T Bell Telephone Laboratories auditorium in New York City to see the first American demonstration of something new: television. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover provided the “entertainment,” as his live picture and voice were transmitted over telephone lines from Washington, D.C., to New York.

“Today we have, in a sense, the transmission of sight for the first time in the world’s history,” Hoover said. “Human genius has now destroyed the impediment of distance in a new respect, and in a manner hitherto unknown.”

Here, you can view a simulation of the picture quality as well as film footage demonstrating the broadcast itself. We've certainly come a long way since then.

Wine Industry Turns Its Nose at Ladybugs

2007-04-06T22:30:00.000-05:00

Ever wonder what makes ladybugs so smelly? A team of researchers reports to have set off to find the answer and comes back with some surprising results.

Of the 38 compounds identified, [Lingshuang] Cai determined that 2,5-dimethyl-3-methoxypyrazine (DMMP), 2-isopropyl-3-methoxypyrazine (IPMP), 2-sec-butyl-3-methoxypyrazine, and 2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine play a major role. The overall smell is a mixture of nutlike, green bell pepper, potato, and moldy odors. At the concentrations present in ladybug emissions, the mixture is "really stinky," Cai said.

As a consequence of this research it is hoped that the wine industry can use this information to improve the quality of production. These insects are known to feed off of grapes in vineyards and can contaminate the wine if they are processed along with them. Now that the offending chemicals are known, any such tainted wine could be refined and its effects nullified. Cheers!

A Personal Transmutation

2007-04-05T20:30:00.000-05:00

As part of the natural process of getting older, growing up, maturing or however you may describe it, it becomes essential to ask questions. Since man is a being of volitional consciousness and not born with innate ideas, it is proper for him to find answers to the questions we face every day. By doing so, we come to learn more about ourselves and what we value in life. These values give our lives focus and as a result an unfettered pleasure. Not a pleasure that is born out of whim and ephemeral but one for which we can evaluate our lives by as if to say, "This, is what life is meant to offer. This is my life."

I think one of the things that helps us to conceptualize this idea is for people to have a favorite quote. Quotes are usually taken to form the essence of another's theme, argument, or speech. In a way they can be thought of as Matryoshka dolls, relating one idea to a vast number of supporting ideas. I myself have a favorite quote, one that is from Ayn Rand's essay "The 'Inexplicable Personal Alchemy'" in her non-fiction book The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution.

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. In one’s youth that conviction is experienced as a self-evident absolute, and one is unable fully to believe that there are people who do not share it. 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.

I like this quote because it says a lot about today's current culture even 38 years after the essay's publication. From an early age, young minds strive to understand this world we live in. Their most direct form of knowledge is first-hand by that which they perceive. Percepts are an absolute, they can't change their identities, i.e. A is A. From this frame of reference the young mind begins to conceptualize and abstract principles that will hopefully, he thinks, allow him to grasp greater truths about reality. Obviously, not everyone thinks in these terms but implicit throughout is the fact that ideas are what drive action and as Rand stated "the conviction that ideas matter".

Unfortunately, this is not a self-actuating process. As said before, since man's consciousness is volitional and he is therefore fallible, he must always check his ideas by an objective standard. He must know that his ideas have validity in reality and are not subjective constructs of his own mind. It is usually later in life that we begin to see individuals who have defaulted on the responsibility to think, to take ideas seriously. They begin to doubt in man's ability to grasp facts about reality because they lose objectivity. When this happens they think that man must cheat reality in order to live.

From today's dominant morality of altruism this is most evident. Altruism states that man must sacrifice for others as the standard of good. So if sacrifice is always the good, then anything that is done for ourselves-be it the wealth we accumulate, the food we eat, or the house we live in-is what we do by way of stealing or cheating reality in order to go on living. All of this, as a consequence instills uncertainty in a person's mind. It is the "original sin" made real as sanctioned by that individual.

This gray is what makes it so contrast with that of the youth's radiance in Rand's quote and what in essence is Rand's method of thought in her writings. This to me this is what many people find appealing in her writings. Of course this is only one aspect of her writings, as there are many others well worth of note. But they are for another time.

Now For Something Completely Different...

2007-04-04T17:00:00.000-05:00

Being around chemistry geeks, you come across some interesting stuff along the way. First there was Robert Palmer's 1985 video, "Addicted to Love" then it was Shania Twain's 1999 "Man! I Feel Like a Woman!" (granted not a parody), now it's "Resistant to Base"

The Separation of School and State

2007-04-03T23:54:00.000-05:00

As part of the 2007 Lecture Series at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), C. Bradley Thompson's lecture entitled, "The Separation of School and State: The Case for Abolishing America's Government Schools" is now available to registered users at the ARI. Those not registered can go here to get registered.

Thompson's lecture is also available for purchase (DVD/CD) at the Ayn Rand Bookstore and is described as:

Why do so many Americans—liberal and conservative—support a compulsory system of government-run education? What role should the State play in educating America’s children? Are government schools compatible with a free society? Is it possible to have a free market in education?

In this lecture Dr. C. Bradley Thompson, Professor of Political Science at Clemson University, examines the destructive effects of "public" education in America. He critiques the principal assumptions behind government schooling (e.g., that children have a "right" to an education and that government schools are for the "public good"). And he calls for the abolition of all government schools. Thompson presents a principled argument for a free market in education that begins with the rights and responsibilities of parents to provide for the education of their own children.

Global Warming Is Not a Crisis: A Debate

2007-04-03T21:45:00.000-05:00

Adding to the list of debates/discussions I've been mentioning here so far, I came across one involving global warming, via World Climate Report. It was distributed by NPR which provides an edited 50 minute broadcast as well as the unedited 90 minute version. As an interesting note, before and after the debates, the host Intelligence Squared, polls the audience for their vote on the motion. For this specific debate the results were as follows (before, after):

Those for the motion: _____29.88, 46.22%
Those against the motion: _57.32, 42.22%
Those undecided: ________12.80, 11.56%

Apart from the opening statements there wasn't too much in-depth analysis of scientific data. I would say it was more talking at crossed purposes. What is needed in any type of debate like this is an agreed upon frame of reference. The panelists mentioned "consensus" several times. In fact, you can hear it everyday from news reports about climate science. But what is really needed is for consensus to be demystified.

George Musser attempts to do just that in his post over at Scientific America. He points out that consensus should not be understood as arbitrary groupthink but instead that, "[w]hen scientists use this term, they mean it to say that certain scientific questions have been settled to most people's satisfaction and that it's time to move on to other questions."

On the surface, this idea makes sense. Scientists perform experiments that attempt to explain causal phenomena in reality. An experiment's validity rest on the fact that it is reproducible for others to investigate and analyze. But unlike most other fields of science, climatology is the least predictable. It involves a vast array of complex interrelated variables that is hard enough for meteorologists to decipher for one week, let alone climatologists for 100 years. In science, uncertainty is involved with every measurement taken and reports projecting well into the future assume broad uncertainty in their results. So when people read about how climate models are constructed, how their parameters don't even begin to mirror reality, e.g. cloud cover held constant over time, and are only a "best guess" there is bound to be hesitancy on the view of consensus.

It should also be remembered that the consensus science that is touted by the advocates of measurable anthropogenic climate change is not as pure as they make it be. As politically controversial as the subject as become it is only natural for the science itself to be influenced by the structure that makes it possible. In recent weeks there have been complaints put forth against the Bush administration for suppressing specific climate science that it finds objectionable. Whether or not this is true, it should give people pause to consider whether it is a legitimate responsibility of the government to be in the business of science. Projects that are considered for funding by the government will naturally use political pull to get that funding. This also is a double edged sword. By using limited funds for research, approving funding for one project will always deny funding for others.

I found this argument to be well presented in Patrick Michaels' Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Instead what is needed is a radically different way in which we view government and its natural responsibility. Otherwise as Ayn Rand pointed out in her essay "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness, "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."

Trial Balloon Continues To Sail

2007-04-02T20:20:00.000-05:00

Only befitting a man who--wins a rigged election, declares to wipe Israel off the map, claims nuclear energy for peace while shouting "Death to America!", offers Americans the rope to kill themselves with, initiates proxy wars through Hezbollah and Hamas against free individuals, and aims to spread a global caliphate--can we expect such brazen displays off force shown when Iran captured 15 British servicemen and holds them hostage.

This is obviously not a simple border dispute. If it were, Iran would have simply informed the British vessel it was in their territory and advised them to leave. Such action would not have garnered such attention as it has now. Instead this is Iran thumbing its nose at Western governments and on a much larger scale it's an attempt to see what they can get away with.

As Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, pointed out:

The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.

Of course the worst part of the story is the U.K.'s response to its aggressors. Instead of showing the full support for its citizens lives and issuing a direct ultimatum backed by the threat of force, the British government thinks it can better resolve the situation with diplomacy. Since this demonstration of force is more a test of British conviction, is diplomacy really going to better London in the long term? How long before it's too late will Iran be allowed to fester?

In the mean time Cox & Forkum offers a therapeutic alternative.

Panel Discussion & Wafa Sultan

2007-04-02T15:14:00.000-05:00

Just an early reminder for those in the area not to forget about this panel discussion hosted by UCLA.

Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West

Who: Dr. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum
Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute
Dr. Wafa Sultan, outspoken critic of Islam and author of the forthcoming
book "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster"

What: A panel discussion on the threat of Islamic totalitarianism and how to deal with it

Where: UCLA Campus: Moore 100, Los Angeles, CA

When: Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 7:00 PM

Admission is FREE.

Description: From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency--it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an "age of terror" and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory.

But is the conventional wisdom right?

A distinguished panel of Middle East experts will provide new and illuminating answers to the most important questions of our time: Is the West ready to concede victory so easily? Are the terrorists a fringe group of fanatics, or are they part of a much wider ideological movement? What threat do they pose to the West? What can the West do to ensure victory? Is peace possible?

While the experts will answer these complex questions from diverse points of view, they all agree on one thing: Islamic totalitarianism is a real threat, and the right response necessitates engaging in a principled, ideological battle to defend the West from the jihad declared against it.

Speakers' Biographies:

Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle-East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle-East issues. Dr. Brook has served in the Israeli Army and has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on hundreds of radio and TV programs, including FOX News (The O'Reilly Factor, Your World with Neil Cavuto, At Large with Geraldo Rivera), CNN's Talkback Live, CNBC's Closing Bell and On the Money, and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism.
Dr. Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. He taught history at the University of Chicago and at Harvard University, and lectured on policy and strategy at the Naval War College. He currently teaches at Pepperdine University. Dr. Pipes is the author of twelve books and numerous articles. He is a columnist for the New York Sun and he appears weekly in Israel's Jerusalem Post, Italy's L'Opinione, Spain's La Razón, and monthly in the Australian and Canada's Globe and Mail. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, is among the most accessed Internet sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Mr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O'Reilly Factor, The Today Show, the BBC and Al Jazeera.

Dr. Wafa Sultan is a secular Syrian-American writer and thinker, Dr. Sultan is known for her participation in Middle East political debates, widely circulated Arabic essays and television appearances on Al Jazeera, CNN and Fox News. Dr. Sultan was shocked into secularism by the atrocities committed against innocent Syrian people by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1979, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor in front of her eyes at the University of Aleppo, where she was a medical student. On February 21, 2006, she appeared on Al Jazeera, where she scolded Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently and for not acknowledging the accomplishments of non-Muslim societies, including their greater freedom and capacity for producing wealth and technology. She named the Islamic threat to the West as "a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose." A video of her appearance, widely circulated on Web logs and through e-mail, has been viewed an estimated 12 million times. Her outspokenness has brought her both threats and praise. Dr. Sultan is currently working on a book to be called "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."

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

I think it would be well worth it to hear from Wafa Sultan. The only other time I've heard her speak was when she made shockwaves in her interview on Al Jazeera. The Muslim cleric also being interviewed with her isn't that ready to look himself in the mirror anytime soon. His attempts at discrediting her for her lack of faith are self defeating. If you wish to engage someone in discussion you must recognize that truth comes from the correspondence to reality not divine revelation. At this time, Wafa Sultan has become a naturalized citizen of the US and resides in Los Angeles. Kudos to Wafa Sultan.

The Time For Talks?

2007-03-29T17:25:00.000-05:00

The Donald & Paula Smith Family Foundation hosted a debate entitled:

The Time for Talks:
Can and should the U.S. make deals with Iran and Syria?
Tuesday February 13th, 2007

Featuring
Hillel Fradkin
Expert Working Group to the Iraq Study Group & Director, Center for Islam, Democracy and the Future of the Muslim World, The Hudson Institute
Steven Clemons
Senior Fellow & Director, American Strategy Program, The New America Foundation
Justin Logan
Foreign Policy Analyst, Cato Institute
Yaron Brook
former Israeli Military Intelligence Officer & Executive Director, Ayn Rand Institute

Moderator
Harvey Shapiro
Contributing Editor, Institutional Investor

If you scroll down just a little you can watch/listen here.

The Standard That Doesn't Disappoint

2007-03-28T00:20:00.000-05:00

Although my copy of The Objective Standard hasn't arrived yet through the mail, (like Diana's) I have managed to devour it just as fast. All four articles were highly enjoyable to read, although I didn't read them in the order presented by the journal.

Given the sense of urgency created by Bush's failed policy towards Islamic totalitarianism, the lead article was a must read and my first choice. "The 'Forward Strategy' for Failure" is by far the most clear and concise argument put forth for a true policy of self-defense. It explains why the Bush administration insists on pursuing contradictory goals of spreading democracy and defending American lives. That they need to delude themselves in saying altruism is the moral and the practical even though the results demonstrate otherwise. As to Bush's new solution to the problem by deploying some twenty thousand additional troops they write,

Although characterized as a change in strategy, this is just a change in means, not ends. Spreading democracy remains the unquestioned, self-delusional end, for which more troops and a push for security are the means. Before the war, Saddam Hussein’s regime was the obstacle that had to be removed so that Iraqis could have democracy. Now, it is the utter chaos of insurgency and civil war that obstructs the realization of an Iraqi democracy. In both cases, American men and women in uniform lay down their own lives for the sake of Iraqis. Amid the inevitable results of a democracy’s mob rule and the predictable sectarian war, the Bush administration looks on with purposefully unseeing eyes and rededicates America to a “surge” of senseless sacrifices. The multiplying evasions enable Bush and other advocates of the strategy to fool themselves, and any remaining Americans who still believe in the strategy.

Until Americans recognize the need to wage a real war, one in which our hands aren't tied behind our backs, the end result will be the death of our soldiers. If Bush continues to diminish American's view of self-worth, I would agree that the best course of action is to retreat. At least that way we'd be saving countless numbers of Americans lives that surely would have died as a result of Bush's policies. But of course it's easy to see the logic of such action. By removing ourselves from the battlefield we would be enabling future attacks on our soil. It would only be a matter of time. So given our current options it's either die now or die later. This doesn't seem like an inviting course of action. So why not dispense with the whole lot and fight a war by doing what is necessary. We should demand nothing less than victory!

After that I continued with Diana Hsieh's "Egoism Explained". This being Diana's first article from TOS, I was very eager to read her assessment of Dr. Smith's book, Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. I personally haven't gotten around to reading her book yet so I was hoping to get some interesting analysis to keep in mind when I do start. The article opens very strong as does its conclusion. The only problem I had while reading it was that it seemed more like a summary of the book itself with not much substance discussing Smith's ideas themselves. The only exception to this being her analysis of the status of productiveness as a virtue in a given context. Of course I'm willing to admit to "shooting the gun" in my judgment since Diana does explain in her previous post, "In editing my review, Craig did rightly excise some substantial discussions of side-issues." So it could just be that we weren't able to see the review in full.

Following along, I then read Dr. Mayhew's article, "The Rise and Fall of Ancient Greek Justice: Homer to the Sermon on the Mount". Mayhew starts out by describing two different murders, one in which the murderer was killed for his offense the other embraced with open arms by the victims relatives. What brought about such a perversion of justice? Mayhew argues that it was the introduction of Christian morality epitomized by the Gospel of Matthew and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. In essence it tells us to not make moral judgments, which leads to rewarding evil because it is evil.

I left David Harriman's article, "Induction and Experimental Method" as something to look forward to as an ending. Given my background in science, I knew I'd enjoy a philosophic discussion on the subject. Harriman explains in simples words the essential experiments performed by such scientists as Galileo and Newton. Through analysis of their work and the resulting discoveries, Harriman identifies the unifying theme connecting it all: that man gains knowledge about the world using a conceptual framework of induction. Doing otherwise, by making arbitrary assertions, leads to intellectual stagnation and ultimately skepticism. My only question is, when do his books, The Anti-Copernican Revolution and Induction in Physics and Philosophy come out? They're definitely going on my shelf when they do.

All and all, the Spring 2007 issue was a great addition from the scholars at The Objective Standard. If you don't have a subscription to this journal, I highly recommend it. You can subscribe today and if you're a student they offer discounted rates.

Mind-Body Dichotomy

2007-03-22T23:21:00.000-05:00

Writing under a pen name, Sean Aqui recently pointed out a list, compiled by Human Events, of the ten most dangerous books in the last two centuries. The list itself is not much of note, demonstrating conservative disdain for communism and its appeal to religion. Some titles included are: The Communist Manifesto, The Kinsey Report, and Beyond Good and Evil.

What I found to be the most dangerous part of the article was Aqui's ignorance when it comes to the power of ideas:

Perhaps that's the lesson to be imparted here. Ideas are not harmful; applications are. We should hold Hitler, not Nietsche, responsible for the National Socialist movement. We should hold the Soviet authorities, not Marx, responsible for the compound disaster that was the Soviet Union.

While I won't disagree that the Third Reich or the Soviet Union were a plague upon the world, to dismiss out of hand the ideas that made them possible is an even worse injustice. What Aqui fails to recognize is that ideas are not floating abstraction divorced from reality but are in fact reality dependent. Without reference to reality ideas would have no meaning and would be as incomprehensible as baby talk. This is the very reason why Ayn Rand said that Kant was the most evil man in history. His ideas are the exact opposite to what is required if man is to live here on Earth.

In fact this very was subject was discussed by Dr. Leonard Peikoff in his essay "Fact and Value". In the essay he presents the argument that philosophers actively espousing irrationalism, though not legally guilty are in fact guilty in the moral sense. By actively putting forth ideas that are contradictory to man the philosopher in essence is at war with reality and urging that they be put into practice.

Is it any wonder why Hitler rose to power when the intellectuals in Germany were preaching against man before him? Ideas set the stage for action, it is up to man to choose the right ideas.

Indoctrinate U

2007-03-20T17:40:00.000-05:00

To piggyback on Gus Van Horn's post, a new documentary on university indoctrination is coming out soon entitled, Indoctrinate U. It has also been making its way to special screenings across the country.

You can also view an interview with the filmmaker Evan Coyne Maloney on Fox News' Hannity's America here.

Little Britain

2007-03-20T04:30:00.000-05:00

If you haven't heard of it yet, let me be the first to recommend Little Britain. It's a hilarious British sketch comedy show put on by the creators, Matt Lucas and David Walliams. Apparently it started out as a radio series but gained enough popularity and was picked up for television. You might describe it as Monty Python in drag.

The basic idea behind the show is to illustrate the many aspects of the "British people". They go around Britain looking in on certain character's lives and see where it goes from there. They've certainly amassed a roll of characters since its creation, but one of my favorites in Marjorie Dawes. She's the local chapter leader of a diet club called Fat Fighters:

Check out Marjorie visiting her mother in the hospital. Or have a look at this reformed church.

A Confirmed Non-Believer In Congress

2007-03-19T18:36:00.000-05:00

Via Wall of Separation, a reported milestone as been reached as the first congressman, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), has come forward to confirm he holds no belief in a higher being.

“When the Secular Coalition asked me to complete a survey on my religious beliefs, I indicated I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being,” Stark said. “Like our nation’s founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services.”

While this is no great leap towards a secular government, it is a starting point. Maybe if more congressmen were to confirm their non-belief publicly there would be more valid discussion on the corrosive nature of faith itself. But don't count on that happening anytime soon. A majority of Americans claim they wouldn't vote for an atheist so there's not much incentive for politicians to be so forthcoming.

Wikipedia vs. Ayn Rand

2007-03-18T06:17:00.000-05:00

Mike, over at The Primacy of Awesome, tells of his very ambitious undertaking of adding content to Ayn Rand related Wikipedia pages - specifically this one here. Judging from what it was previously, he seems to have added quite a bit of information. The real question now is: how much of what he wrote will last?

Some opinions of Wikipedia as a legitimate information source can be characterized as tenuous at best. Its popularity as one of the largest information sources can be well understood when trying to search for something. Everything you ever wanted to know, from peeps to Dutch literature, is at your fingertips. However, based upon the Wikipedia structure, information can be added and edited by anyone. The standards for validity appear to be open to interpretation, i.e. subjective. What one person writes one day, could be deleted the next. What appears to be the "truth", is in a way, simply truth by consensus, i.e. majority rule.

What is further troubling is, Wikipedia co-founder, Jimmy Wales' reported devotion to Objectivism. It seems counter-intuitive for a self-described Objectivist to set up a system whereby information is evaluated by a collective standard. Is it just me on that one? If I am right then it seems Wales would be doing more harm than good, in furthering the Objectivist movement.

So as more and more people perform searches for Ayn Rand on Wikipedia, they will at least get some basic "facts". Whether or not they realize they've only scratched the surface will be up to them. But if the Ayn Rand Institute keeps up with their educational programs maybe some will be encouraged to crack a book.

John Lewis At George Mason University

2007-03-18T02:19:00.000-05:00

After having the first attempt to give a lecture on the defeat of Islamic totalitarianism canceled, John Lewis has been invited back (requires facebook) to the George Mason University campus for a second round.

On April 24th at 7:30pm in the JC Cinema the [College Republicans] will be hosting a lecture by Dr. John Lewis, Ph.D. Lewis is a history professor at Ashland University in Ohio. He will be discussing his article, No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism. This talk was previously scheduled to appear at Mason, but because of its controversial content its original sponsors were no longer able to sponsor it. We have decided to hold this talk because, as a club, we value discussion and debate, both internally among our own members, and externally, with others on campus. We also believe that Dr. Lewis' ideas for winning the war are of interest to our members and the larger Mason community. This talk is being sponsored by the GMU College Republicans, GMU Objectivist Club, and the Objectivist Standard. Please mark your calendars for this exciting event! It will be Tuesday, April 24th, 7:30pm in the JC Cinema![bold and link added]

This is the first I've heard of an exact date for the rescheduled lecture. Let's hope this time around things go a little more smoothly. For others' coverage on the issue check out NoodleFood and Gus Van Horn, quoting George Mason himself.

Posted earlier today on the George Mason University Objectivist Club webpage is the official notice.

Updates: minor edit in quote, added link to GMU Objectivist Club

Pop Culture Spotlight

2007-03-15T01:45:00.000-05:00

For my personal enjoyment, I find the time to watch certain tv shows. One of them being, Lost. Television shows like Lost are a welcomed retreat and a great alternative to any reality or game show to date. Its engaging plotline and characters keeps you coming back for more every week.

While their attempts to explore themes such reason vs. faith are trying at best, Lost doesn't reveal every detail, which leaves the audience wondering if a resolution is going to be presented. But I suppose so long as they remain "lost" such resolutions will be out of grasp.

However, in the closing moments on Wednesday's Lost episode "Par Avion", there is a passing clip of Josh Holloway's character, James "Sawyer" Ford, reading Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. I'm sure there's a better picture somewhere, but I make due with what I have. It's nice to see there is still such a cultural influence by Miss Rand.

Update: Replaced photo with shot of book cover.

Cultural Magnifying Glass

2007-03-15T00:45:00.000-05:00

Yaron Brook is making the rounds across the country giving lectures on issues related to the Middle East and the Bush administration's complete failure to wage a proper war in self-defense. Past lectures include: The Morality of War, Neoconservatives vs. America: A Critique of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 9/11, and Democracy vs. Victory: Why The "Forward Strategy of Freedom" Had to Fail". This last one has become the basis of an essay by Yaron Brook & Elan Journo, as I linked to in my last post.

Related to this, via an Ayn Rand Institute Press Release:

The essay draws on a lecture presented by Dr. Brook at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston on October 22, 2006; an audio recording of that event is available as an MP3 download or streaming audio from WGBH Boston. [Links added]

Though I've heard Dr. Brook present the material in past lectures, I enjoy listening to him discuss the issue because it is so a radical alternative to the self-sacrificial doublespeak and evasion you hear in the news. For those of you not swayed by such an incentive, I offer that you can always listen to the Q&A that follows the lecture. Sometimes these periods, in general, offer interesting perspectives on issues brought up in the lecture and they're always well worth the response by the presenter. They allow for further elucidation and clarity, especially on complex philosophical premises such as: how is morality justified?, by what standard is sovereignty granted?, or are citizens of an enemy nation truly innocent?

While this Q&A was no exception, I found myself a little aggravated, not at Dr. Brook's answers but at the many disrespectful questioners present. I should preface this by mentioning that the lecture was forcibly interrupted, not once but twice, by protesters who were singing (what it was I do not know, it was inaudible).

Oddly enough, there was a presentation five months prior to Dr. Brook's at the Forum entitled, "Singing for Justice", supposedly looking at the impact of protest singing since the Kennedy administration. You can infer what kind of "justice" they were talking about.

What stood out about these questions, I would argue, was the acceptance of their validity in contrast to the Q&A periods given by Ayn Rand herself. Rand made it explicitly clear that she would not give moral sanction to such irrationality. Most of the "questions" asked of Dr. Brook's were of such a vile nature I was surprised he even took the time to answer what semblance of English they uttered. In contrast, Rand would refuse to recognize any person who explicitly or implicitly smeared, defamed, or bashed her. This is not to say that she was some raving dictator. In the context of a Q&A it is the responsibility of a questioner to form a legitimate question to ask of the speaker not a lengthy diatribe.

To extrapolate this event onto a cultural level in contrast with only one other person's experience would be irresponsible on my part. Although I can't but help think it to be a sign of our cultural decay due to anti-conceptuality. If our culture is progressively refusing to identify man's nature and accept that reason is his means of survival, it is the mind that will be destroyed as a result. Instead of a method of conceptualization it will be the anti-conceptual that will be advocated and every attack on reason stems from such irrationality. The attacks on Dr. Brook by such protesters demonstrates their refusal to even listen to what he had to say in his lecture and were simply attempts to get cheap attention. To Brook, I would say he was too lenient to such people. They deserve nothing but contempt.

But it is to the credit of Dr. Brook, when asked if he will voluntarily stop giving lectures because of their supposed impact on the Bush administration's failed policy (if only he could have such an impact), he responded noting that it was the Ayn Rand Institute who advocated attacking Iran from day one and by further saying, "I don't intend to stop and will never stop [speaking]" Let's all hope this is so.

Forthcoming From The Objective Standard

2007-03-11T03:16:00.000-05:00

Patience is a virtue, or so goes the old adage. These are keen words to remember, especially after I read that the Spring 2007 issue of The Objective Standard will be coming out soon. It looks to be chocked full of goodies, as always. But for those who can't wait, like myself, they've made available their lead article by Yaron Brook & Elan Journo, "The 'Forward Strategy' for Failure".

As a personal aside, they appear to be recycling their color schemes for the covers. Each seasonal issue having its own corresponding color. (Spring = red, Summer = blue, Fall = yellow, Winter = green) I always wondered what color it was going to be next before each issue came out. And now that it's a whole new year, it makes sense to continue with the same colors instead of having to create a veritable rainbow. Obviously I haven't much experience with journal subscriptions and layout design, but I never claimed to be an expert.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

2007-03-11T00:43:00.000-05:00

Via LGF, I came across this program put on by the British station channel4. It is by far the most concise presentation to the alternative global warming viewpoint I have seen.

Nowadays there seems to be little doubt about the validity that man-made carbon dioxide concentrations are affecting global temperatures. At every turn the MSM brings forth news of Earth's imminent demise. That's why it was a welcomed treat to see individuals actually bringing out science to show such doom-and-gloom don't hold water.

One of the experts in the film is Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He is a prominent critic of the global warming theory and has written on the subject many times. I've read two of his more recent books, The Satanic Gases and Meltdown. I highly recommend both of them for their clarity and abilities to expose false myths related to climate change. Michaels is able to go point by point on key arguments demonstrating that the science just isn't there. I would say The Satanic Gases makes for a better read for those not too familiar with climate science, as it goes into more detail about specific global processes than does the latter book.

This is also a great time to point out a fascinating interview with Václav Klaus, second president of the Czech Republic. [HT: Rule of Reason]

Q: On Wednesday, the European Commission has approved carbon dioxide caps for new cars. One week earlier, the U.N. IPCC climate panel released a report that has described, once again, the global warming as one of the major threats for the whole civilization. The Stern report about similar threats was published before that. And you suddenly say that the global warming is a myth. Try to explain, how did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a myth and I think that every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" and "if's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.

This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians... If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.

Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it, I don't plan to learn it, and I don't pretend to be an expert in such measurements. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article grew in size and it became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.

Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...

A: ...I am right...

Q: ...Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr. Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person hardly. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say that he has. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.

It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.

That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you simply present your honest opinion.

In the comment section, this is what I had said in response to reading the interview:

It's not very often that you hear (if you get to at all) voices such as Klaus'. The clarity of his response and his rejection of sanctioning his interviewer the high ground at the end was like a shot to the arm to me.

When he made mention that environmentalism was a "metaphysical ideology" you can see his mind integrating. Unlike american conservatives who mumble about "markets" all the while paying lip-service to their enemies, he's not afraid of absolutes: "A: ...I am right..."

It makes me wonder if he's cognizant of Objectivism since it is the only philosophy able to provide a rational defense against ideas like environmentalism.

University Journalist Wrongs Elan Journo

2007-02-17T06:23:00.000-05:00

As part of its ongoing commitment, the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) is regularly invited to come speak on college campuses across the country. By doing so, it hopes to spread a rational philosophy that will ultimately lead to a cultural change. There are over 120 campus clubs devoted to Objectivism and this past year the ARI participated in 39 lectures with a total of over 3,000 people in attendance. And just think, this is only one way in which they spread ideas.

One such campus event was recently held by the USC Objectivist Club. They had invited Elan Journo, junior fellow of the ARI, to give a talk entitled, "Islam's Role in the Terror War on America". I of course was not there, but those in the area obviously did attend and their school paper wrote an article about the event. After reading the article and from my past exposure to Mr. Journo's writing I can tell that his talk had strong similarities to his recent paper (subscription required) at The Objective Standard, "The Jihad on America". The summary of which states, the paper:

Elucidates the fundamental ideas behind, and the principal sponsors of, the Islamic assault on America by reference to the words and deeds of its adherents and supporters—words and deeds that westerners in general and Americans in particular must understand if we are to eliminate this anti-life movement before it eliminates more of us.

From the school article, it is evident the author is sympathetic to Islam or a Muslim herself. The fact that she bleeps out the word Allah as if it were blasphemous and when making reference to Muhammad offers blessings upon him illustrates this fact. This is revealing in light of her comments on Journo's speech.

Journo makes the point that it is obscene to call this a "War on Terror" because it evades the whole basis of the war. What one must first realize is the fundamental cause for the conflict and then identify its source. In the war we are faced with today, religion, and more specifically, faith is the fundamental cause. Faith being defined as the acceptance of an idea with no relation to or even in direct contradiction to the facts of reality. Therefore when no rational discourse is possible between two competing ideas the end result will be through the use of force. It is Islam's reliance on faith that drives Muslims to perpetrate these attacks.

From this, there are those who wish to impose Islam onto others via Islamic Totalitarianism. It is this moral ideal that Journo was talking about when he said that we must obliterate it. Those who wish to use force against us. He also pointed out the greatest supporters of this ideology, Iran and Syria. If these two were held accountable and brought to justice, it could be argued that this war would end rather quickly. Just as we destroyed Germany and Japan as the sources of collectivist ideology, so too Iran and Syria.

In short the article's author, Natasha Khan, fails to see the link between the terrorist's motivation (ideology) and their use of force. She merely hears, "Islam is to blame. The terrorists were Muslim. Therefore we need to kill all Muslims." Instead of making the connection that it is from a proper basis of self-defense that we should retaliate. It is not Islam as such that our government should fight but rather Islamic Totalitarianism. This is how she comes to grossly misrepresent Mr. Journo's views by stating that he advocates a second Holocaust.

Khan later goes on to try and dismiss Journo's credibility on the topic when he says that he's not an Islamic scholar, "That seems strange when much of the lecture was spent in telling the audience about Islam." However, I would argue that a complete study of Islam and its history are not necessary. All that is needed is to understand its fundamental characteristic, which is common to all religions, faith. All the other stuff helps to clarify but to a lesser extent. When questioned about military actions he responded by stating that he wasn't a specialist to which Khan replies, "that appears strange when battle plans formed the crux of this [sic] Journo's solution." This is just blatantly false. Journo's speech did make mention of action against Iran and Syria but his purpose was not to present a military plan of attack. It was to identify the root cause of the current war and the ideology supporting it.

I can only conclude that this article is a deliberate smear of Mr. Journo and his ideas stemming from an inability to understand his thesis. The Daily Trojan should be ashamed to have published this trash but from my reading of the USC Objectivist Club's past experience with them it seems to be common practice. Eck!

Books, Books, and More

2007-02-15T03:27:00.000-05:00

Lately I've been amassing a collection of books here at school. It appears to have the effect of a double-edged sword. The moment I get them I want to look through them and start reading them. This of course takes away any time I have that could be put towards my studies. It's very frustrating in that sense, but I really just like reading my books. College textbooks are too dry.

Since I have such a strong interest in Objectivism, I want to read up on it as much as I can and the primary source for current scholarly work on Objectivism has to be the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Whenever they come out with their annual catalog I peruse through it looking for lectures or books that pique my interest. So as you might guess, by this time I have a fairly long wish list going (I'll accept any size amount of gift donations that you may wish to give me). Over the summer I was able to save up a fair amount of money and was able to get some really good stuff from the ARB. Let me list them:

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics by James Valliant
The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith
The Objectivist Forum Edited by Harry Binswanger
Religion vs. Man by John Ridpath (CD)
Selected Topics in the Philosophy of Science by Harry Binswanger (Audio)
The Philosophic Corruption of Physics by David Harriman (Audio)
The History of America-Complete Series by Eric Daniels (CD)
The Foreign Policy and Terrorism Collection (DVD)

Of course that's not all the books I got recently. From separate sources I bought:

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z Edited by Harry Binswanger
Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life by Michael Paxton (DVD)
The Abolition of Antitrust Edited by Gary Hull
A Brief History of Science by A. Rupert Hall & Marie Boas Hall
Aristotle by John Herman Randall, Jr.
The Aristotle Adventure by Burgess Laughlin
Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem Edited by Robert Mayhew
Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living Edited by Robert Mayhew
Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead Edited by Robert Mayhew

Also too add to these lists are books I've recently checked out from the library and might buy later:

John Adams & the Spirit of Liberty by C. Bradley Thompson
Ayn Rand and "Song of Russia": Communism and Anti-Communism in 1940s Hollywood by Robert Mayhew
Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality by Tara Smith

I'm beginning to see this post has become just one long list. I'll have to clarify which one's I've read and which one's I haven't later. I can say that I'm currently reading Mayhew's Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem. So far I've really enjoyed the essays by Tore Boeckmann, "Anthem as a Psychological Fantasy", and John Lewis, "'Sacrilege toward the Individual': The Anti-Pride of Thomas More's Utopia and Anthem's Radical Alternative". And just today I received Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. I was able to read one essay by Andrew Bernstein, "Understanding the "Rape" Scene in The Fountainhead". I'm really glad they decided to discuss this about The Fountainhead since it is easily one of the most misunderstood aspects in the novel. Dr. Bernstein did an excellent job putting in clear terms what Dominique's motivation was and her reasons for such "an engraved invitation". I can't wait to read the rest of the essays.

There's a First Time for Everything

2007-02-14T04:35:00.000-05:00

So as you can see I decided to join the blogosphere by creating my own blog. It's not much right now but I hope to change that, as I will be continually updating its appearance.

After a couple of days, I finally came up with the name of "Abandon Caution". I attempted to integrate subjects that interest me, things I plan on blogging about, and that personal touch (as if the others weren't personal too). Yes my last name is Caution (I've been told it's of Scottish origins). So for the first time in my life, I've decided to cash-in on the word. More often than not my blog will be devoted to philosophy, specifically Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I am no expert on the subject simply a student. Taking the idea of moral evaluations being either black or white, I've applied them to the idea of a stop light where yellow is known to be "yield". This concept of caution applied to the field of ethics, and more broadly philosophy in general, could be thought of as "grayness". This theme is the idea I encourage those who read my blog to abandon. Instead I hope to show that an objective basis for evaluation is necessary.