Caught On The Net August 1, 2008
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Caught On The Net , add a commentAs much as I’d like to post to this blog more regularly, as well as predictably, I just find myself out of time, most of the time. I stumble upon quite a few interesting stories and articles on the web that I’d like to share with the very few (and of course, very lucky) people who accidentally find themselves here, but writing a thorough post to my satisfaction on each and everyone of those “stumbles” is simply out of the question. So as a solution I’m simply going to aggregate them into one post with light commentary for your reading pleasure.
Gus Van Horn and Myrhaf do this already - calling it Around the Web and Around the World Wide Web respectively. I would’ve loved to follow their footsteps, but I find “Caught On The Net” to be much more … snappy. So, Welcome to Caught On The Net 000!
1. Presidential Elections and the Supreme Court
Thomas Sowell has a must-read article at Capitalism Magazine that should make you think twice about who to vote (or not vote) for this coming presidential election: what kind of judge do you want sitting on the Supreme Court for the next generation. Here’s an excerpt:
Recent momentous decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have been decided by 5 to 4 votes, including the votes of justices appointed by presidents who are no longer living– Justice John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Ford, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President Reagan.
Whoever is elected to the White House this November is expected to appoint two or three new members of the Supreme Court– justices who will be making major decisions affecting the future of American society, long after that president is gone.
Your children will be living during the lifetime tenure of those justices, and your grandchildren will be living in a world shaped by the precedents that those justices set.
[...]
This is especially important to be kept in mind by voters who are thinking of venting their frustrations by voting for some third-party candidate that they know has no chance of being elected.
I don’t know whether that was supposed to make it easier to decide or whether it just adds another variable to an already complex problem. Good luck!
2. More on Wasted Votes
Diana Hsieh of NoodleFood recently received an invitation to join the ranks of a supposed “Objectivist Party” from a masquerading Objectivist. Unaware of his true nature as a Libertarian, she responded with a “No, Thanks” and a strong argument against the senseless voting for unelectable political parties that Thomas Sowell just mentioned above:
The problem with American politics today is not that Americans are looking for an Objectivist candidate but [that] the major parties will only run statists. The majority of voters are reasonably satisfied with their choice between left-wing and right-wing statists on Election Day. Objectivists must work to change the culture toward secularism, reason, egoism, and individual rights. Only then can we expect better politicians to mount a credible campaign, let alone win elections.
That cultural change will be felt within the major parties — so long as Objectivists don’t sequester themselves into political irrelevance in their own unelectable political party. If Objectivists (and sympathizers) demand that the major parties court their vote, then political change for the better is possible.
[...]
Today, if the small but growing number of Objectivists and sympathizers gravitate to an Objectivist political party, the Republicans and Democrats could safely ignore us for decades to come, knowing that they’ve already lost our vote. That’s a license for more statism, not less.
George Santayana said that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Make sure you read her whole response for the history lesson.
3. I Told You So?
Staying true to their nature, the Communists have decided to only allow limited access to the internet to foreign journalists during the Beijing Olympic Games. Via The New York Times:
BEIJING — The International Olympic Committee failed to press China to allow fully unfettered access to the Internet for the thousands of journalists arriving here to cover the Olympics, despite promising repeatedly that the foreign news media could “report freely” during the Games, Olympic officials acknowledged Wednesday.
Since the Olympic Village press center opened Friday, reporters have been unable to access scores of Web pages [...].
The restrictions, which closely resemble the blocks that China places on the Internet for its citizens, undermine sweeping claims by Jacques Rogge, the International Olympic Committee president, that China had agreed to provide full Web access for foreign news media during the Games. Mr. Rogge has long argued that one of the main benefits of awarding the Games to Beijing was that the event would make China more open.
Well, so much for that! Compromise between good and evil, anyone? As far as I’m concerned, the IOC deserves no less for giving moral sanction to what is, arguably, the most repressive country on Earth.
4. Strange Priorities
If you’re a “drowning-in-freedom” Westerner, that is. China really is outdoing itself in more ways than one lately in preparation for the Olympics. Via The Associated Press:
BEIJING - Polishing up Beijing for the Olympics has extended to telling residents what not wear, with the city government advising against too many colors, white socks with black shoes, and parading in pajamas.
The advice, on top of campaigns to cut out public spitting and promote orderly lining up, was handed out in booklets to 4 million households ahead of the Olympics, an official said Thursday.
[...]
There should be no more than three color groups in your clothing, [the etiquette booklet] advises, and wearing pajamas and slippers to visit neighbors, as some elderly Beijing residents like to do, is also out. It recommends dark-colored socks, and says white socks should never be worn with black leather shoes.
This just gives a whole new meaning to the term “Nanny State”! It would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. What does this say about Chinese culture, however? That is, as a society more concerned about presenting its citizens to the outside world as obedient but fashion conscious cogs than as free and individual men and women capable of making their own decisions.
Untitled July 21, 2008
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Cultural Criticism , add a commentDo you know what I’m sick of? The incessant babbling by both McCain and Obama about the intrinsic nobility of public service. No. Not “public service” as in choosing to be a policeman, or firefighter or soldier, but rather outright serfdom - euphemized as “serving a cause beyond one’s own petty self-interest”, of course.
Sink your teeth into this excerpt from Obama’s recent speech to the 2008 graduating class of Wesleyan University:
[...]There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.
But I hope you don’t. Not because you have an obligation to those who are less fortunate, though you do have that obligation. Not because you have a debt to all those who helped you get here, though you do have that debt.
It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition. Because it’s only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential and discover the role you’ll play in writing the next great chapter in America’s story.
Assemble all your mental strength and ignore the doublespeak for a minute. There is something very condescending and insulting being insinuated here. First, that living my life the way I choose, pursuing my own goals and happiness and wanting to improve my own lot in life not only has no moral merit, but is a moral defect that “betrays a poverty of ambition”. Second, which is really preposterous, is that the mere fact of someone being a public “servant” makes him morally superior to those who are not. [Pay a visit to the Post Office and report back on who is the real servant.]
The intended argument here is that a social worker, or thuggish bureaucrat, or favor-peddling congressman is intrinsically morally superior to the actually productive businessman. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t remember the last time I was satisfied with an act of Congress. And since he doesn’t legally rob me of half my earnings and never forces me to act at the point of a gun, I find my local grocer to be of better service to me than any current member of Congress. And as long as we’re measuring moral worth according to social utility, I still consider my grocer to be more useful to “society” than the IRS or once again, the entirety of today’s Congress. No offense to grocers, of course.
What is saddening, and indeed very frightening, is that virtually everyone buys into the poisonous philosophy of Altruism. No one safe Objectivists can present a principled and flawless defense of your right to be selfish; that is, of your unalienable right to your own life, liberty and property.
I remember enjoying fireworks over the Hudson River just two weeks ago. I couldn’t help but notice another spectacle: that for almost everyone present, Independence Day was about just that - fireworks! Flags were waving and everyone was wearing red, white and blue, yet no one seemed to be mindful of the fact that the independence that was being celebrated barely exists anymore and is in serious threat of extinction this very year!
Americans certainly have a poor roster of leaders “public servants” today. It’s not often mentioned, but this sorry state of affairs is only a reflection of the the political mindset that dominates the voting population- that is, a self-righteous sense of entitlement. And this is the other side of the altruist coin: the expectation that others must toil for your benefit just as you are expected to toil for theirs.
In practice, this means lacking any semblance of self-reliance, a total rejection of responsibility and a convenient predisposition to falling hook, line and sinker for the bait of any ambitious demagogue “public servant” - who’s merely preaching to the choir. Case in point: our tragic but very predictable current mortgage crisis and the seemingly baffling, mysterious and simply inexplicable popularity of Barack Freakin’ Obama.
Life After Congress May 25, 2008
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Interventionism, Law and Government , add a commentMost people in this country lead their daily lives with the illusion that there exists some sort of fundamental difference between our two major political parties; namely the Republicans and the Democrats. Here’s and interesting passage from an article by Congressman Ron Paul that should put an end to the entertainment of this folly - not that I’m naive enough to think that it actually will:
[After leaving office, former members of Congress] find it quite convenient to associate with other former members of the opposing party and start a lobbying firm. What might have appeared to be contentious differences when in office are easily put aside to lobby their respected party members. Essentially no philosophic difference of importance exists — it’s only a matter of degree and favors sought, since both parties must be won over. The differences they might have had while they were voting members of Congress existed only for the purpose of appealing to their different constituencies, not serious differences of opinion as to what the role of government ought to be. This is the reality of bipartisanship. Sadly our system handsomely rewards those who lobby well and in a bipartisan fashion. Congressional service too often is a training ground or a farm system for the ultimate government service: lobbying Congress for the benefit of powerful and wealthy special interests.
This article from the Washington Post, though a bit old, offers greater (financial) perspective on the subject as well. Don’t miss it.
Gas Prices and the Problem of Evil May 22, 2008
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Religion , add a commentThere’s a man going around the country organizing prayer stations at Gas stations asking God to “deliver us from these high gas prices”. Whatever you think of him, you should credit the man for his novel approach to a rather vexing problem.
Religious people stubbornly lack the ability to recognize that everything about God is one gigantic contradiction. Instead of having anything to do with evil, Diana Hsieh has undeniable proof that high prices, being part of God’s plan and will, are the greatest good we could ever wish for. It goes as follows:
…as an omniscient being, God must be already perfectly aware of the high price of gas. As an omnipotent being, he must be capable of lowering gas prices. Since he’s all-benevolent, he wouldn’t allow gas prices to remain as they are if that was an evil. Ergo, high gas prices must be all for the best.
Can’t argue with that, can you? This, in fact, has opened my eyes to the fact that for anyone who believes in an all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful and all-[insert favorite attribute here] deity, it is impossible to logically admit in the existence of any kind of evil since everything is part of God’s will, which is all-good.
Don’t believe me? The Holocaust is considered by many in our society to be the greatest act of evil ever committed. Just recently, a sermon from televangelist John Hagee (a former endorser of John McCain) has surfaced which essentially makes the claim that Hitler was nothing but an instrument of God’s omnibenevolent will.
This twisted view of the nature of good and evil is rather commonplace; just look up Fred Phelps or the Reverend Pat Robertson.
Who said THAT? May 12, 2008
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Philosophy and Objectivism , add a commentObjectivists and all rational individualists, this one’s to your benefit:
“It is philosophy that makes man understandable to man, explains human nobility, and shows man the proper road. The first defect appearing in any nation that is headed toward decline is in the philosophic spirit. After that deficiencies spread into the other sciences, arts, and associations.”
[...]
“Philosophy is the escape from the narrow sensations of animality into the wide arena of human feelings…In general, it is man’s becoming man and living the life of sacred rationality. Its aim is human perfection in reason, mind, soul, and way of life….It is the foremost cause of the production of knowledge, the creation of sciences, the invention of industries, and the initiation of the crafts.”
Go here and prepare to be shocked. You’ve been warned!
No Wonder Our Taxes Are So High! March 12, 2008
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Cultural Criticism, Law and Government , add a commentThere’s a finally a convincing theory to make sense of that complex question: Why are we lawfully robbed of so much of what we earn? I’m not sure about the people in other states, but in New York, we have an answer — which is that taxation is necessary so that our honorable politicians may be able to afford “a basic human necessity”: $4300 to spend a couple of hours with a whore, every now and then!
Please excuse my language today, I just find this sort of hypocrisy beyond outrageous! I wonder though what would make a man such as the governor, (i.e.: a rich, powerful man who without a doubt has an abundant selection of women at his disposal - freely, not to mention HIS WIFE!) would spend $80,000 a year for sex. Even Julia Roberts only charged $3000/week; Mr. Spitzer routinely shelled out the same amount for one freakin’ HOUR! Either these girls have some out-of-this-world skills, or “The Sheriff of Wall Street” must have some very, very, very sick fantasies! Most New Yorkers don’t even make near $80,000 a year … or even 2! But maybe I’m just falling victim to the Marxist notion of price.
Isn’t it amazing how it’s always the self-righteous ones that tend to be the sleaziest of them all, whether they be Republican or Democrat? I wonder what’s hiding in Obama’s closet(s)? Do you think he could be Muslim? Just kidding. He might be a socialist however.
P.S: On a more serious note, I believe prostitution should be perfectly legal … I just don’t think public officials (or anyone else, for that matter) should be able to enjoy it at my expense.
Francisco D’Anconia, Redux March 11, 2008
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Economics (Theory), Philosophy and Objectivism , add a commentI just stumbled upon a very rare thing, and feeling a little nostalgic about blogging, I thought I’d share this with whomever is still dropping by here.
And what exactly is this: it’s a rational comment from Slashdot:
why do you think you achieve some sort of higher moral ground or purpose by shunning money? all you do is hobble your own ability to properly understand how the world you live in actually functions. i’m not asking you to worship money. and money certainly leads people to do evil things. but again, money is just an abstract expression of human desires. the real evil is aspects of human nature itself, not a piece of green paper with alexander hamilton’s face on it
all i’m asking you to do is grant money the proper respect it deserves for quantifying abstract human interest in such a way that it makes the world we live in a better place. yes, money is a great invention, like the wheel or the semiconductor. it makes your world a better place. bartering chickens for school books gets kind of old after awhile. thus the glorious invention of money. and no, i’m not gordon gecko. i’m just a realist. realism trumps cotton candy idealism any day. and the most sober realistic consideration of money in this world is that it makes your life better
The author was trying to knock some sense into those smug, obliviously self-righteous slashdotters who think WikiPedia shouldn’t consider selling advertisements as a solution to its financial problems. If you’re familiar with Atlas Shrugged, this should remind you of Francisco’s Money Speech — save for the fact that the definition of money here leaves a lot to be desired.
For a quick and excellent starter on money, see What Has Government Done to Our Money, by Murray Rothbard. Though I’m usually wary to recommend this author’s writings, this is by far, the single best introduction to money I know of, bar none. In light of this country’s current monetary tragedy, this should interest you.
As Aware As I Possibly Can February 20, 2007
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Philosophy and Objectivism , add a commentI was stumbling around on the web when I came upon this most interesting YouTube video about con men (”Psychic” Uri Geller and “Faith Healer” Pastor Peter Popoff) and the man who handles them best: James Randi.
Randi’s exposition of pseudoscience, deception and dishonesty are simply masterful, but it is something he says that hit it most with me … so I transcribed it below:
Why People are so drawn to the irrational is something that has always puzzled me. I want to be, if I can, as sure of the world, the real world around me, as is possible. Now, you can only attain that to a certain degree, but I want the greatest degree of control.
I don’t — never — involve myself in narcotics of any kind; I don’t smoke, I don’t drink, because that can easily just fuzz the edges of my rationality, fuzz the edges of my reasoning powers, and I want to be as aware as I possibly can.
That means giving up a lot of fantasies that might be comforting in some ways, but I’m willing to give that up in order to live in an actually real world … as close as I can get to it.
Unfortunately, the Kantian in Randi shows up in there, but the essence of what he says — “I want to be as aware as I possibly can” — is one of those healthier attitudes many of us could use. It reminds me of a passage from OPAR (p. 56):
The primary choice, according to Objectivism, the one that makes concpetual activity possible, is the choice to focus one’s consciousness.
[...]
“Focus” (in the conceptual realm) names a quality of purposeful alertness in a man’s mental state. “Focus” is the state of a goal-directed mind committed to attaining full awareness of reality.
Make sure you watch the whole video — and this one, too. They’re both hilarious, among other things.
Technorati Tags: Randi, James Randi, Uri Geller, Reason, Rationality, Pseudoscience, Peter Popoff, deception, magic, illusion
Rampant Idiocy in New York February 14, 2007
Posted by Resident Egoist in : Cultural Criticism, Law and Government , add a commentNew York really seems to be outdoing itself lately: first, it was a statewide smoking ban, then it was a ban of trans fats in all New York City restaurants. Then there was something more ridiculous: The New York City Board of Health decided that it would not only let people “pick” their gender, regardless of what it actually is — but that it would also enforce that decision on others!
Now, State Senator Carl Kruger, seeing that New Yorkers will take just about anything, wants to basically stop us from using any electronic devices while walking outside. Via WNBC:
A state senator from Brooklyn said on Tuesday he plans to introduce legislation that would ban people from using an MP3 player, cell phone, Blackberry or any other electronic device while crossing the street in New York City and Buffalo.
NewsChannel 4 reported that Sen. Carl Kruger is proposing the ban in response to two recent pedestrian deaths in his district, including a 23-year-old man who was struck and killed last month while listening to his iPod on Avenue T and East 71st Street In Bergen Beach.
“While people are tuning into their iPods and cell phones, they’re tuning out the world around them,” Kruger said…
Yep, you’ve got to leave it to politicians to manufacture the crime of WWLM — Walking While Listening to Music. It is impossible to walk for more than 30-45 seconds in New York City without having to cross a street! Now imagine having to interrupt your phone conversation, or having to pause your iPod, every 30 seconds, just so you can cross a street! Why does Mr. Senator think that, for some reason, I can’t use my eyes and ears at the same time? Your guess is as good as mine.
Politicians really are awkward creatures: they think of every little thing as a big problem that needs to be solved by legislation. Not to sound too insensitive, but if a grown man doesn’t know how to properly cross a street, he really may be out of “tune” with the world, but an iPod is the least of his problems. Maybe Mr. Senator ought to consider legislation that would ban people from listening to music or the radio while driving their cars.
—
P.S: Holy sh*t! I think I’m blogging!
Technorati Tags: Idiocy, New York, Carl Kruger
Ask, and You Surely Shall Receive June 8, 2006
Posted by Resident Egoist in : War and Peace , add a commentHeed this — via the LA Times:
[June 8th, 2006 | Vienna, Austria] — Iran began to enrich a second batch of uranium in its research plant this week on the same day that world powers delivered a negotiating offer to Tehran conditioned on its suspension of nuclear activities, according to a report released Thursday by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Whoever says there is no justice in this Universe definitely does not watch the evening news.