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.