"One week after the election, a think tank founded and led by President-elect Barack Obama's transition chief, John Podesta, referred to synthetic biology as "the most profound challenge to government oversight of technology in human history." In an op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News, Daniel Ballon, Ph.D., PRI technology studies fellow, explains that synthetic biology offers an unprecedented opportunity to transform modern medicine, generate clean, renewable biofuels, and create millions of "green collar" jobs. Will the Obama administration encourage this innovation and respect the scientific community, or cave in to special interests peddling fear and hysteria?"
The better question is this: What authority does the government have to "oversee" any industry? We recognize such things as its authority to oversee standards that have been set for such things as pollution controls; national security interests such as selling items like supercomputers or explosives to enemies who would use those things against us; or in sorting out the vagaries of such things as where the rights of one industry may or may not overlap, such as the right of independent VOIP companies to use the high speed internet providers who offer their own VOIP?
President Bush is the first, and hopefully the only, President who can be said to be of the "religious right". His administration prevented the use of embryonic stem cells in research because his extreme right wing views are such that he--and millions of other people--believe that once the egg has been fertilized by a sperm, it has a soul provided by the Almighty, or that in some way it is one of God's sacred creations and therefore cannot in any sense of moral conscience be destroyed.
Where is the separation of church and state? Since several federal courts have deemed atheism to be a religion for the purposes of protection under the Constitution, an atheist who wishes to experiment with embryonic stem cells ought to be able to do so; after all, I do not have to follow the religious dogmas that Mr. Bush lives with, and he does not have the right to implement such dogma into law.
So where does the right of government oversight begin and end?
It seems it is to have a new beginning under the Obama Administration, which is going to print billions of dollars of money to put into those industries it deems either necessary, worthy, or "green."
Along with all these manufactured dollars will surely come oversight. Free money does not come with out strings. And it is not going to be a simple case of an industry accepting government funding for something it is already doing. The Federal government agencies responsible for handing out these unsecured greenbacks are going to be looking for results--and only the results it wants to see.
Obama is going to replace religious dogma with government dogma.
This is the reason that Ayn Rand stated the principle that there ought to be a wall of separation between industry and state, for the same reason as there is between church and state.
The Bush administration pushed for the government dogma of alternative fuel in the form of corn-based ethenol. This pushed up the price of corn to indefensible levels, farmers put wheat on the back burner in order to cash in on the profits to be made from corn, and as a result both wheat-based and corn-based products went up in price.
Government dogma screwed the American citizen. Fuel mileage is lower with corn-based ethenol, but it costs less, which was a priority when oil prices were going up, and in the attempt to wean us from middle east oil. Instead of paying higher prices at the pump, we now pay a much higher percentage for our food than we would have paid for our oil-based gasoline with the corn syrup left out of it.
Government dogma has no idea of how to "manage" industry or the economy. As a matter of fact, they cannot be "managed" without dire consequences. The housing market bubble disaster is because of government "management" of interest rates, which encouraged Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to perform in a very un-business-like manner, something they never would have done if money had not been so cheap.
Part of Detroit's problems are caused by concessions made to the Union--after the government stepped in many times to help negotiate a settlement because it was deemed "disastrous" to let the industry sit idle while both sides held their ground.
Part of Detroit's problems are that it's own dealers protested when, for example, GM announced several years ago that Chevrolet was going to be making only small cars, and the bigger cars would be in the other brands. Chevy dealers protested that they could not sell only small cars. Now, mini cars are the rage, along with the small, compact, efficient vehicles put out by the Japanese and the Koreans and the Germans and others.
Government oversight of how to build a car, i.e., what specifications and standards it should meet to be viable in the market place, would have bankrupted the industry already if it had such oversight. It seems it is going to get such oversight, at least in that part of the industry where it will have a "car czar" to tell it where government dogma says it is doing wrong or right.
I read, in a highly respected science magazine, that the Chinese are building a different kind of nuclear reactor than American law allows for. These reactors are smaller, cheaper, easier to build, can be transported in sections and erected in series, as needed, to increase output when it becomes necessary. And the Chinese reactors are so safe that the "China Syndrome" can never happen.
America knew about this type of reactor before "oversight" outlawed it. As a matter of fact, this kind of reactor was invented by the west before it invented the kind of reactor we use now.
But government dogma had other ideas: it seems that cheap, plentiful electricity, easily installable, would throw the electricity industry into some form of "confusion," and the big monopolies would no longer have monopolies, which means that they and their share holders would lose money because competition to build these smaller, cheaper, cleaner reactors would cause the existing companies to shrink.
"Physicists and engineers at Beijing'sTsinghua University have made the first great leap forward in a quarter century, building a new nuclear power facility that promises to be a better way to harness the atom: a pebble-bed reactor. A reactor small enough to be assembled from mass-produced parts and cheap enough for customers without billion-dollar bank accounts. A reactor whose safety is a matter of physics, not operator skill or reinforced concrete. And, for a bonafide fairy-tale ending, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is labeled hydrogen." Wired
When mayors of Chinese cities and towns need more electricity for their citizens because of population growth and capitalist-style industrial growth, they call the manufacturers of these small reactors and order them! And when they need more power, they order another one to be put in line with the first one. This series can apparently go on for as much electricity is needed.
Instead, America goes for dogma instead of the Chinese idea of how capitalism can cause a nation to become rich.
Certainly China has problems too, such as the murderous chemicals its unscrupulous manufacturers put into their products. But every nation has unscrupulous manufacturers. "Oversight" can never catch such forms of immoral behavior. It would require inspectors everywhere, in every industry, at all times, 24/7/365. And it still would not catch what smart but unscrupulous people will do to their goods just to make profit-making easier or quicker.
Communists used to be fond of saying they did not need to invade other nations to "take over" those other nations. Just let socialism creep in and take over everything, like vines creeping on a brick building, and when there was enough socialism, communist political takeover would not seem threatening at all.
Bush has created the biggest federal statism in our history. It is now BarakObama's legacy, before it has even begun, to finish the socialist task of creeping into every nook and cranny of American industry.
Perhaps in my lifetime I will even see a communist President who denies he is communist, as Obama (never denied) he is Marxist.
NEW YORK –December 13th, 2008 A month after protesters picketed its annual dinner for inducting Focus on the Family’s James Dobson into its Radio Hall of Fame, the Chicago-based Museum of Broadcast Communications (MBC) announced today that it was selling its half-finished building.
"Pandering to extremists doesn't pay and the Museum of Broadcast Communications suffered a catastrophic blow to its reputation by honoring Focus on the Family's James Dobson," said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out (TWO). "Bruce DuMont hoped to cash in by catering to the deep pockets of the religious right, but his prayers weren't answered.
When the nomination of Dobson was announced, TWO teamed up with the Gay Liberation Network and launched http://www.dumpdobson.com/to keep Dobson out of the Radio Hall of Fame. These robust efforts culminated with a full-page "Dump Dobson" ad in the Chicago Tribune, signature ads in the GLBT media and a large demonstration outside of the awards dinner at Chicago's Renaissance Hotel.
DuMont blamed his woes on alleged broken promises by Gov. Rod Blagojevich and the economic downturn. He did not point out that his project lost momentum after it became mired in controversy by cozying up to Dobson, says TWO.
"I can understand the temptation to pin the blame on Blagojevich, as he is not too popular these days," said Besen. "But, DuMont should take responsibility and admit that his project lost its luster and foundered after he chose to bronze the bigotry of James Dobson."
Washington -December 18 It would seem that another protest may be on the way. It was reported this morning that President-Elect Obama has chosen Rick Warren, the celebrity preacher at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., to give the invocation at Obama's swearing-in ceremony.
Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right's big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion. The Swamp
Well, it sounds as though Warren has his own "social gospel." Considering the effect TWO and The Gay Liberation Network had on the Dobson controversy, I'm waiting to see what they do with this. Pandering to extremists may not pay, but it is not "extremism" that is the problem. America's Founders were extremists. Ben Franklin himself must have been an extremist, to become America's first millionaire.
Or are we only talking about religious extremists? Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammad were extremists.
Warren's ideas are not "extreme." They are outrageous, insulting, and in the sense that such widely popular theists can effect public policy and law, thus breaking down the wall of separation between church and state, not to mention influencing other citizens to become homophobes by wrongful moral comparison to child molesters makes such men as Warren unfit to "invocate" the swearing-in of any American President.
"It has been a work years in the making, but finally the Study Guide to the Scholar's Edition of Ludwig von Mises's "Human Action", is available. You can order the handsome volume here, and — as we've come to expect — the Mises Institute is generously providing the entire book free for download here."
I have already downloaded mine, to a thumbdrive. The study guide is 318 pages and I have yet to read page one because I have had my copy for only 2 minutes now! But I am looking forward to reading it side by side with "Human Action."
The Study Guide's author, Robert P. Murphy, wrote in the Daily Articles of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute:
"Once you realize that Mises has a definite plan for the book — it is certainly not a Joycean stream-of-consciousness riff — then its 881 pages are not as daunting. You realize with each chapter, 'Yes, now I see why Mises couldn't really get on to Important Topic X until he first dealt with the material he just covered.'"
And if you are a free-market naturalist, (which you are if you are a metaphysical naturalist,) you just might want to check out The Gold Standard: An Austrian Perspective YouTube video from the Mises Institute's first conference, November 16-17, 1983; Washington, DC.
"The outgoing Bush administration this week will finalize a regulation establishing a "right of conscience" allowing medical staff to refuse to participate in any practice they object to on moral grounds, including abortion but possibly birth control and other health care as well."
It is unconscionable that anyone engaged in enterprise such as pharmacy, nursing, anesthesiology, or anything involving health care should be forced to commit acts that are against his/her conscious.
But if we are to allow such professions to object on moral grounds, then the power of dispensing with health care needs to be given to those who can provide it without a bothered conscious.
The medical profession, from the least important, most replacable jobs in the industry, to board certified doctors, is not open to the layman. If my daughter cannot get birth control in the one-pharmacy town in which she lives, 14 miles from the next pharmacy, then she ought to be able to get them with out prescription.
Fat chance. But you see the issue, and you see that conscious cannot count in an area where only the licensed are allowed to even have such a conscious. Those out side of the licensed arena must not be allowed to be held hostage by monopoly. And the licensed professions are indeed a monopoly, though not of the sort normally thought of. They are a monopoly of educated, regulated, duty-bound individuals who are given the power to provide services and products which we, the general public, are not given open access to.
Since we do not have access to these services and products without the duty-bound licensed professionals, and since it is not against the law for us to procure them from these professionals--indeed, it is illegal to procure them without the professionals--then they cannot be allowed to let their conscience get in the way of their monopoly license.
The very fact that it is illegal for us to procure these services and products without the assistance of licensed professionals is what causes them to be "duty-bound." Ayn Rand was absolutely correct when she said: "The meaning of the term 'duty' is: the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest."
But she also said, "'Duty' destroys values: it demands that one betray or sacrifice one’s highest values for the sake of an inexplicable command..." “Causality Versus Duty,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 95
The privilege of having a licence is no "inexplicable command," so no values are destroyed by the prevention of choosing one's conscience over one's licenced privilege. Soldiers are duty-bound to protect the lives of their fellow soldiers; doctors are duty-bound to save lives whenever possible; airline pilots are duty-bound not to be drunk while flying. These are not inexplicable.
Is the use of the word "duty" to describe the requirements of licenced professionals the wrong word? Not when Rand is using it in the social sense, when the inexplicable duty "may demand the sacrifice of his values at any moment, wiping out any long-range plan or struggle he might have undertaken to achieve them . . . ."
If the struggle and long-range plan of a licensed professional is to prevent the products and services offered by capitalism and approved for use, then he must do so from outside the strict, lawfully defined terms of his position.
It is one thing to protest, to plan, to persuade, and otherwise to struggle to achieve the goals of one's life. It is another to use one's power to prevent others from achieving their goals. They ought not need to struggle against the very people licensed to provide them with their goals.
Stop Jihad In America Now
"We are Americans opposed to the “stealth jihad” being waged in this country by those who promote Shariah - authoritative Islam’s theo-political-religious program for establishing a global theocracy. As such, Shariah and its espousal of violent and stealthy jihad constitute sedition. We are determined to resist efforts now underway to create “parallel” Muslim societies and otherwise to insinuate Shariah into this country via its mosques, prisons, campuses, media, government and financial institutions. continued
is financing jihadists' efforts to overthrow the governments of the western world. Read the article above to find out about the Federal suit brought against the Treasury Department to stop its traitorous efforts to be sharia-compliant so long as the long term goal of sharia is to overthrow the rest of the world--which has been 1400 years now, and counting.
"We all know what George W. Bush decided to do," says Naturalism.Org, discussing the subject of free will, using Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq as the example.
"But if we could turn back the hands of time and give the President a second chance, with everything exactly as before, might he chart a different course? Could he choose otherwise? "With the help of free will, surely he could. "Or could he? "With everything as before, including Bush, why would he?" http://www.naturalism.org/Converse.pdf
Naturalism.Org does not believe in free will. It believes in science without the interference of metaphysics. Metaphysics is not science. Naturalism.Org is interested in science, but not about the conclusions of broader, more comprehensive thinking that begins with science and ends with philosophy. Like the science of physics, scientific naturalism has its own means of distancing itself from metaphysical judgments.
On the subject of free will, it says: "...it's no surprise we defend this conception against science, hoping to keep those nasty dogs of determinism at bay." [emphasis added]
But it is not against science when we identify the unchangableness of a thing that remains "as it was before." It is merely common sense to say that if "A is A", and we go back in time to a place where "A remains A", it is "A".
If "A" is something that human will is capable of changing, it cannot itself change when everything else remains as it was. In other words, for an example, if someone swings a fist at you the first time and you duck because the act of defensively raising your arm to deflect his swing in not in your arsenal of self-defensive behaviors, what makes the author of the Bush scenario think that, turning back the hands of time, when the identical situation occurred you would do other than you did the first time?
In order to change your will and thus your behavior, at least one thing in the scenario must change. To declare that "with the help of free will you surely could change A into B or C or D" is to ignore the fact that omnipotence is not part of man's description. You can't change that a man takes a swing at you; you can't change that certain defensive moves are not part of your knowledge; you can't change that the one thing you know how to do without thinking about it first is to duck. If everything stays the same, everything stays the same including the outcome.
It is morally objectionable to set up a premise that has no chance of ever becoming reality, and changing "A into not-A" has no chance of ever becoming reality.
The owner of Naturalism.Org, Tom Clark wrote this: "In a piece on recent murders in Connecticut, [the author] defended the concept of evil as a matter of free choice, nothing explicable by looking at genes or environment. Why do people do horrible things? Not, he says, because they were shaped by nature and nurture, although of course genes and environment have their effects, but simply because they are evil.
"It's disturbing that [the author] supposes the appeal to innate evil reflects a rational comprehension of behavior, since it's precisely the opposite: he's insulating horrific acts from explanation, from understanding them in terms of their causal antecedents." [emphasis added] http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm
First, the idea of innate evil is not the same as evil by free choice. Clark is disingenuous by turning A into not-A, free choice into something innate. What is innate is not by choice, free or otherwise. The author is not talking about innate evil; he is talking about evil by choice--as he plainly states.
But to determine that evil, determined to be through free choice, is then the result of causal antecedents makes evil neither innate nor of free choice: it makes it deterministic.
"Again," Clark continues, bemoaning that someone has chosen to believe in free will, "choice is king: it's held to be independent of how dysfunctional the killers were, something that floats free of any explanation involving the factors that shaped them. But of course we don't need to suppose killers are moral levitators, as Daniel Dennett puts it, to hold them responsible, although we won’t any longer think of them as self-created monsters."
But Clark himself forgets--in this argument--that choices are made in spite of causal antecedents, which is the very crux of his own argument for scientific naturalism. "People and their wills aren’t disempowered when we explain them in terms of antecedent causes," he writes elsewhere on his site. "Just as my antecedents, genetic and environmental, had the causal power to create me in all my glory, I too have causal power to influence the world. So don’t forget about me." [emphasis added]
If we are not to forget despite antecedent causes about the will of men, then I can think of people such as murderers, terrorists, rapists, and child abductors as nothing less than self-created monsters. You can say they chose to go on a murderous spree; or you can say they did not choose to do something else. Being beaten up by your father as a child; watching your mother get hit by a car; having your face burned by battery acid; having no shoes because your family is too poor; getting angry at the rain because it soaked your new clothes; or being hungry, tired, cold, lonely, depressed, achy, or lovelorn, all of which are antecedent causes, are not reasons to choose to do evil, nor to choose not to do what is right and good. They are not reasons to choose not to do evil. The "factors" that shape a persons's choices are moral whether or not biological, social, or environmental influences are consuming one's cognitive powers.
"Mental defect" may often be a proper defense in a court of law; but improper behavior based on faulty epistemology, or the metaphysically evil thoughts that can sometimes follow improper epistemology, are not "mental defects." They are defects in the process of thinking.
“The lack of free will," Clark quotes another story, "sometimes called determinism, maintains that peoples' decisions are the result of an unbroken chain of prior occurrences; each action is caused by the previous one; individuals don't really have choices.” – news story from The Vancouver Province, 2/28/08.
"This conclusion, of course, is mistaken," he posits. "You can’t logically attribute power to the world and not to the agent," which is what the previous examples do: concede the causal efficacy of what created the person, "but deny that the person plays a role in how things unfold in her immediate neighborhood, and sometimes well beyond. Although we don’t have ultimate control over ourselves – there’s no evidence," he says, "we are self-created in a way that can’t be traced back to non-self factors – we have plenty of local, proximate control and power: our actions, controlled by our wills, often have the intended effects. This control and power doesn’t go away when we admit that the will itself has causal antecedents, that it didn’t create itself." [emphasis added]http://www.naturalism.org/demoralization.htm
That, Mr. Clark, is what free will consists of, and in the end holds people repsonsible for "playing a role" in the choices they make, choices which are of free choice and which then cannot be described as "innate." Innate would be mental defect. Free choice resulting in wrongful acts,
even accidental wrongful acts, are the result of free choice, of a will that just didn't "create itself."
More on Islamicism
The
commentary below came from Walid Phares’ “Phareswire.” "Even within the walls of a detention center, avowed jihadists are working and using every means possible to advance jihad. The jihadists’ tenacity and willingness to sacrifice themselves is a sobering reality and reminder of what we are up against." [For the complete commentary, click on the word commentary above.]
The Academy Blogger is my own outlet for daily ruminations, thoughts, pronouncements, and rational examinations of metaphysical naturalism in our every day lives.
I enjoy the blogs I write. I sometimes get so deep into the subject that I know they will interest only the most ardent student of philosophy, and then only the ones who wish to follow my logic through to the end.
But I have become aware that more is needed than a daily blog from a working-class philosopher who is without a degree, no matter how objective and epistemologically reasonable my logic is.
So I have begun working on a new web site devoted to metaphysical naturalism that will stand as a reference on the subject without daily need of commentary. It will contain a glossary of terms as the Academy defines them.
Why is this important, to use definitions that I myself have culled from various other sources that may be divergent, or altered or enhanced definitions from other authors, or authored them myself?
Because I have a world-view that seems to be very different from other naturalists, yet I know there are other people in the world who agree with me. I come from the world of Objectivism, where everything is concrete and black-and-white, in the sense that the underlying epistemological principles are not subject to revision, but the subject matter under consideration is revisable based on new information.
Objectivism is a closed system, and one thing that is not revisable is the nature of things that are "self-evidential." Here, I mean specifically the sensory emotion involved when one has cognizance of his/her soul; and I mean specifically the rationality behind the argument for free will.
It is important to define words for a glossary because as many of you may have noticed, the Academy's Definition of Naturalism is not the loose, flexible, new-age "compassionate", altruistic view of man as "fully caused" and without "libertarian" free will or soul.
Denying free will on the grounds that it is not contra-causal is a fairly recent argument. It is one that is metaphysically evil if man is not to be made impotent by its implications. The human race did not rise from the soot of the Dark Ages to the shining light of the concept of individual sovereignty and the responsibility ascribed to such sovereignty by the original thoughts of the Founders of the United States. I mean "original" in the sense that they had not been identified in the past, at least not in such a concretized system as the Constitution.
Individual sovereignty is upheld by an Originalist reading of the Constitution, and by understanding all the learned attempts by America's Founders to guarantee this nation's people all the unalienable rights given them by nature at birth. They understood man in his natural state; but they understood the nature of and the need for law. The Constitution is unique in its integration of both, and unique in the annals of law in that it gives to the individual citizen the benefit of the protection of his sovereignty, while at the same time insuring that civil society is served, not at the expense of the individual but as an integration of all the individuals living at the time, as expressed by the protection of their sovereignty rather than the sovereignty of the society over the individual.
The Academy's metaphysical natural is a refutation of scientific naturalism, which states that man cannot take full credit for his actions, nor full responsibility for them, and that we must feel compassion for the man who did not use his (un)free will to his best advantage and who is "caused" to be what he has become because of his genes, his nurturing, his own constitution, the rain, the breakfast he ate, memes, the blister on his thumb, and the fact that he did not get the job he so badly wished for.
The metaphysical naturalism of this Academy refutes those ideas and stands for man's ability to think, to ponder, to make decisions, and to act on his own behalf without concept of any coercion of the fates, the muses, the memes, or the gravity that holds him to his natural estate.
Man in his natural state is man acting on his own behalf, but in concert with others when it is to his advantage, or when it simply suits his pursuit of happiness. Working in concert with others as he sees fit to act is the reason civil society is shaped by the protection of individual sovereignty. There are few demands placed on the citizen, and consist only of such demands necessary for law to protect citizens' natural rights.
Man in his natural state owes no other men anything but the respect of acknowledging their identical natural state to their own freedom from his interference, just as he demands that they not interfere in his life without his permission to do so.
Man in his natural state is not a pawn of the forces of nature, which are the facts of existence because it is only in existence that he may himself exist. Existence is not his enemy, nor the "full cause" of his psychological and moral existence. He is the "full cause" of them, when he chooses to know what they are and take control of them.
These ideas do not seem to be "natural" to naturalism, as conceived and practiced--in law, in psychology, in education, in art, and in all other things of which naturalism can have an effect that alters them from the "naturalism" of the natural state of man.
The new site will stand as a referential testament to anyone who may wish to know why it is metaphysically important to acknowledge that free will certainly does exist; and why the human soul is man's greatest possession aside from life itself, even though his soul is extinguished with his life, existing only so long as he has consciousness of it. The soul provides the conscious confirmation that a man or woman is properly using reason to remain integrated in his/her epistemological bearings and is accting in accord with them.
Consciousness dies with the mind, which dies with the brain; the soul is an object of man's cognition, not a figment of his imagination, and as an object of cognition it necessarily dies along with the powers of cognition.
Man does not live for the sake of other men. When he gives of himself to others, it is for his own sake, not theirs. Anything else is self-crucificial and certainly not in his own best interest, and not should not be accepted when offered.
Rational self-interest is man's natural state, and is his inheritance, the gift of being the rational animal. Other forms of naturalism do not uphold the individual sovereignty of the individual, sometimes actually negating it through the acceptance of such ideas as non-contra-causal, non-libertarian will, and through the altrusim of compassion over justice, and through the scheme of declaring that reason alone is not enough because the influences of existence itself cannot guarantee the outcome of reason.
Naturalism that denies mans' mind in this fashion often uses the word "reason" to describe its own logic; but reason does not deny man's efficacy, it affirms it. Otherwise, man is metaphysically impotent, and this often makes him impotent in the practical, objective world.
The practical outcome of reason is not a thing that can be guaranteed, but the rationality and integrity of the outcome of reason is guaranteed to be moral. To deny that free will is anything more than the use of one's power to think or not, is not rational and therefore cannot be said to be within the nature of reason--even when its adherents invoke reason and say it is on their side.
The new website will stand alone, with out need of being journalized on a daily basis. In the meantime, and for a long time to come, I hope to continue writing my way through the daily, topical events of existence as the naturalism of Objectivism guides me. Growing statism, criminal acts of murder and mayhem by religious zealots of all stripes, and the distancing of American law from Originalist readings of the Constitution give me much to write about.
Just as the characters in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" were epistemologically character-driven, so can we read the behavior and the probably outcomes of the epistemological drives of the public figures who run our nation today.
I think I won't have trouble finding material for the Academy Blogger. I only hope that I do a reasonable job of analyzing that material. Let me know by your comments when you disagree with me.
Chairman of Sharia Lawyers Brands Christmas "Evil"
As you read the
short article, ask yourself what the “establishment media” would be saying today if the “Chairman of the Society of Christian Lawyers” had publicly proclaimed that Ramadan is “evil,” and a “pathway to hellfire.” Remember, the Muslim lawyer [Choudary] who branded Christmas “evil” is not just any Muslim, but the Chairman of the Society of Muslim lawyers. Note also that he is the Principal Lecturer at the London School of Shariah and “a follower of the Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Mohammed.”
These are the kinds of people American financial institutions are affiliating with when they offer shariah-compliant financial products. [emphasis added]
According to Politico.com, Vice President Dick Cheney lobbied Republican senators to support the bailout of auto companies, arguing that it would be “Herbert Hoover time” in the absence of government intervention.
Cheney is right, but for the wrong reasons. To the extent that it is “Herbert Hoover time,” it is because the current administration has repeated many of the mistakes that were made by President Hoover. There was a huge expansion in the burden of government spending under Hoover, up 47 percent in just four years. There’s been an equally huge increase in government spending under Bush. Hoover dramatically increased government intervention with everything from schemes to prop up wages to protectionism. Bush’s intervention takes a different form, with mistakes such as steel tariffs, Sarbanes-Oxley, and bailouts.
Hoover’s legacy is statism. Bush’s legacy is statism. The only unanswered question is whether Obama will be the new Roosevelt — i.e., someone who compounds the damage caused by his predecessor with further expansions in the burden of government. from Cato At Liberty
The LAST Thing We Need
According to the American Policy Center, the United States is only
of obliterating what is left of our government's policy of protecting individual rights:
A public policy organization has issued an urgent alert stating affirmative votes are needed from only two more states before a Constitutional Convention could be assembled in which "today's corrupt politicians and judges" could formally change the U.S. Constitution's "'problematic' provisions to reflect the philosophical and social mores of our contemporary society." [bold added, link dropped by Gus Van Horn]
The message is, unfortunately, made to look ridiculous by its messenger, which warns not only of the legitimate threats to freedom of speech this could unleash, but also pretends that we do not (and should not) have separation of church and state. I would not want conservative theocrats holding such a convention any more than I would the socialists now in power.
Alan Sullivan, who notes that the left is suddenly talking about pushing for this in Ohio,
comments that -- surprise! -- certain elements of the conservative movement helped push us to this brink some time ago: "[T]he Reagan-era drive to launch a new constitutional convention ... began with a revolt by disgruntled deficit hawks, who were horrified by Cold War deficits, and failed to get a balanced-budget amendment through Congress."
Let us hope that this does not occur, so that we can profit by this object lesson in substituting the point of a government gun for rational persuasion. The ultimate problem lies not with Congress, but with a public that is all too happy to accept trinkets in the form of welfare state programs from the government in exchange for little pieces of its freedom.What were those fools thinking? That Congress would fail to find a way around their amendment if it was passed? Or that a nation that elected such a Congress in the first place would outdo the Founding Fathers as authors of a constitution?-- CAV from Gus Van Horn
An interview with Dr. Yaron Brook titled "Who Is To Blame?" has been published on Newsweek's Web site. Newsweek accepts comments from readers. It ends with this classic Rand-fan fantasy exchange:
Newsweek: With free markets now in disrepute, what's going to happen to the popularity of Ayn Rand's most famous book, "Atlas Shrugged"?
Brook: I think it's going to go up dramatically. I think it already has. [People] are saying, "We're heading toward socialism, we're heading toward more regulation." "Atlas Shrugged" is coming true. How do we get out? How do we escape? Unfortunately, there is no escape. Businessmen are panicking, and I think they should be panicking. Many of them understand that this was not a crisis of free markets. There was no free market to fail. What we have is a regulated market, and the regulated market has failed.
"It is with a sense of great pride and joy that I join with thousands around the nation in congratulating Chuck Colson on his reception of the Presidential Citizen’s Medal presented to Chuck at the Oval Office today by President Bush.
"It is important to remember that the ministry that Chuck founded some 35 years ago is noteworthy not only because it has assisted in countless men and women to transform their lives through the power of a right relationship with Christ, or that this ministry is staff by a veritable army of volunteers who visit prisons and in other ways help to mend broken families with God’s love.What is most noteworthy is that all of this came from one man’s surrender to the call of Christ to turn from his sins and accept the Gospel of redemption.
"Here’s some of what Chuck had to say on the Prison Fellowship site: 'Whatever good I may have done is because God saw fit to reach into the depths of Watergate and convert a broken sinner,” said Colson. “Everything that has been accomplished these past 35 years has been by God’s grace and sovereign design.'"
This is the same Chuck Colson who, it was reported just yesterday, said of Mormons: "Mormonism either affirms historic Christianity, or it doesn't. Since it doesn't, it can't call itself Christianity -- a fact that all the good will and public relations in Utah can't change."
Remember, President George H. Bush is the first Moral Majority President* to be elected, and I thank his God that he will probably be the last. It is deplorable that such an honor should be bestowed--by a President, no less--upon a man with such a distorted view of another religion. The Coptic sect of Christianity does not affirm the historic Christianity, either, since from its inception it was not part of the Holy Roman Church. Would Colson say the same about the Coptics?
Wikipedia has this to say about the Coptic Church: "The Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox family of churches, which has been a distinct church body since the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, when it took a different position over Christological theology from that of the Eastern Orthodox and Western churches, then still in union. The precise differences in theology that caused the split are still disputed, highly technical and mainly concerned with the Nature of Christ. The foundational roots of the Church are based in Egypt but it has a worldwide following."
*The Moral Majority rose to power on the coat tails of Ronald Reagan; Reagan was not connected to the MM in any way other than that of having its support. But for a different--and opposing--view of the strength and power of evangelical American, see this article in "Mother Jones".
[Note: This is a cut-and-paste from Wayne Besen.com, author of the blog Truth Wins Out, from Dec. 9, 2008, and author of the book Anything But Straight. Click on the title below to take you to the Times advertisement described in the Besen column.
[I reprint this in full, because gay marriage is not a "special privilege" separate from straight marriage. The individual sovereignty envisioned by the Founding Fathers and which is part and parcel of the Academy's metaphysical naturalist doctrine, is not served by the denial of civil rights through Constitutional amendments. Marriage is marriage, and it is not, as the hypocrites claim, for the sake of the children. It is for the sake of not having sex outside the sanctity of marriage, something devout believers take as sin--just as they take homosexuality to be sin.
[But if they really believe it is for the sake of the children, then why are gay and lesbian couples with children denied marriage? The hypocrites are causing their parents to have sex outside the sanctity of marriage, not to mention denying the children--and the spouse--the justice of the same legal protections as the hypocrites and their children receive.]
In a breathtaking display of lies and hypocrisy, a group of anti-gay culture warriors and long-time Mormon bashers placed a full page ad in the New York Times pretending to be both victims of alleged homosexual "mobs" and staunch defenders of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
Both claims are absurd and a cruel attempt for the victimizers to claim the mantle of the victimhood - which is a manipulative and cynical political ploy.The dishonest Times ad essentially claimed that violent mobs of gay protesters were attacking the Mormon Church and its followers in the aftermath of California voters narrowly approving Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in that state. They even launched a website
www.NoMobVeto.org. (It seems they forget that they put basic human rights up for a vote, which is essentially mob rule)
This Times ad is full of blatant lies - much like the immoral television ads attacking same-sex families during the Prop. 8 campaign. The fact is, the vast majority of the rallies across America were peaceful. Considering gay families just got stripped of their basic rights by deception and deceit, the protests were remarkably tame. If any other group had been subject to such humiliation through a multi-million dollar smear operation, there would likely have been riots in the streets - not the fake "violence" conjured in the bogus Times ad.
The anti-gay organizations and individuals who sponsored this "Big Lie" ad are trying to pull off a remarkable feat: They are both crying wolf, while being the wolf in sheep's clothing. The degree of chutzpah is remarkable and eye-popping.Consider that a few of the unctuous signers of the ad, convicted felon Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship; Rich Cizik, The National Association of Evangelicals; and William Donohue, The Catholic League are now pretending to love Mormons. In the ad they wrote:
"The violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS or 'Mormon' church and other religious organizations - and even against individual religious believers - simply because they supported Proposition 8 is an outrage that must stop."The ad ended with the following propaganda:
"Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to opposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry - against any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason."Well, that is good news. The authors of this hypocritical ad can start by spotlighting themselves:
"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." -- Bill Donohue, Catholic League
"Mormonism either affirms historic Christianity, or it doesn't. Since it doesn't, it can't call itself Christianity -- a fact that all the good will and public relations in Utah can't change." -- Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries [Note: Colson, you will remember, was one of Nixon's henchmen during Watergate, along with G. Gordon Liddy, who now does TV commercial for "gold."]
"While Mormons share some beliefs with Christians, they are not Christians." -- Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries
"Most evangelicals still regard Mormonism as a cult." -- Rich Cizik, National Association of Evangelicals
I really do hope this group shines a light of shame on those who promote religious bigotry - but they better be wearing very dark sun glasses when this occurs, as the glare from the light may be quite blinding. It appears that the only thing these men have in common with Mormons, or any other religion that they don't agree with, is an uncommon passion for anti-gay discrimination. To watch these hypocrites act as the great defenders of the LDS church, and religion in general, is beyond laughable.
If this were not bad enough, Pat Boone compared Proposition 8 protests to terrorist attacks on Mumbai in a column for World Net Daily titled, "Hate is hate, in India or America. Boone wrote, "Have you not seen the awful similarity between what happened in Mumbai and what's happening right now in our cities?"In his op-ed, Boone also wrote, "What troubles me so deeply, and should trouble all thinking Americans, is that there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists." I'm not sure if Boone noticed, but it was religious extremism that was responsible for the attacks in India.
If these so-called people of faith have confidence in their beliefs, why must they resort to lying in the name of the Lord? For whatever they gain in smearing the gay community, it seems their religion loses twice as much in terms of credibility and respectability. I have no problem if these people have a cross to bear, but why must this so often be synonymous with bearing false witness?
Last month the Treasury Department hosted a forum designed to educate government and private sector attendees on the Islamic finance market. On Dec. 5, the Academy Blogger reported "how Shariah-compliant finance is establishing a foothold in American financial and insurance markets [through, firstly, AIG]. As we all know, AIG is the recipient of a massive government bailout (translation: our tax dollars)." [see
Today, we report to you the UK Financial Times story that “Saudi Arabia’s top cleric” has called for “Muslim countries to renounce capitalism and form an Islamic economic bloc that adopts interest-free finance.” Apart from the fact that shariah “interest-free finance” is frequently disingenuous (in that the financial investments are often structured to provide a profit but the profit is not called “interest”), the pronouncement from Grand Mufti Abdelaziz Al al-Sheikh is but another reminder of the growing threat of “cultural jihad” to the West. Remember, one of the world’s leading authorities on shariah-compliant finance has termed it “jihad with money.”
The American Thinker ran an article, " Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies," Dec 10. In part it said: "Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.
"But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented?
"No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad. These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.
"...it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics."