One Reality

On Strike

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:12:00 +0000

I appreciate the principled stand that Wikipedia is making against the potential threat against free speech constituted by the SOPA (H.R.3261) and PIPA (S. 968) legislation.

Today, January 18^th, Wikipedia is officially on strike.

Naturally, I am completely opposed to the practice of pirating copyrighted material, which this legislation is ostensibly targeting. But the bills follow the chilling pattern of much recent legislation (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley): presuming universal guilt and holding arbitrary power over every honest citizen.

Wikipedia has a good description of the purpose of their strike here, and Google has a petition you can sign here.

John David Lewis

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:53:00 +0000

I am very sorry to hear that one of my intellectual heroes, John David Lewis, has died following a long bout with cancer. He was a brilliant, passionate, and courageous advocate of reason and liberty. His loss strikes me on a personal level--our few encounters at Objectivist conferences demonstrated his warmth and intellectual honesty--but above all it is a blow to the defense of freedom and civilization.

UPDATE

Alex Epstein has a nice tribute, "Remembering John Lewis," on the CIP website. My wife wrote a post dedicated to him back in 2009.

Bartleby, the Coffee Maker

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:44:00 +0000

I always bring my own coffee to work in a Thermos, so the malfunction of the brand new office coffee machine does not affect me personally. However, as an engineer, I cannot help but notice that some very important principle about product design is missing when a machine that is supposed to do something as simple as making coffee politely declines to do so. "Please call operator. (Report error 399)," it suggests--as if that serves as an acceptable apology for refusing to pour hot water through ground coffee.

Perhaps the next generation of such machines will be so advanced they will simply declare, having been asked to produce a cup of coffee, "I prefer not to (Error 401)."

The Thrilling Perils of Shaving Like Your Grandfather

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:00:00 +0000

Shaving used to be an annoying chore for me. I regarded the task as a dreary necessity, a thrice-weekly loss of three to five minutes of my life that could have been spent far more fruitfully than in Sisyphean torment, eternally condemned to roll back the persistent incursion of facial hair. In fact, the only thing that permitted me to summon the energy to shave at all is that after about two or three days of itchy, uncomfortable beard growth, my own face dependably reminded me that my dislike of beards actually exceeds my dislike of shaving.

About a year or so ago, I discovered the pleasures of "shaving like my grandpa," as one article aptly put it.[1] I spent about a hundred bucks on the accoutrements: a Merkur Model 178 classic safety razor, a Tweezerman badger hair shaving brush (don't settle for the inferior boar hair brush!), a nice-looking wooden shave soap dish, a chrome stand, and of course, some double-edged razors and Colonel Conk shave soap. A hundred dollars might seem like a lot of money, but it's really not when compared to the crappy canned shave soap and high-tech multi-blade disposable razors (more than $25 for eight cartridges) that I used to use. It's true that I was stingy enough to use the disposable cartridges until they were as dull as butter knives, but I would bet that my investment in good equipment has already broken even. And even if it hasn't, it is completely worth the cost.

The real benefit to my new shaving habits is not monetary but psychological. It certainly takes more time to shave than it used to--it has increased to about eight or nine minutes--but somehow it's much more pleasurable. It's no longer a chore. To take a minute to whip up a lather in the bowl; to feel the vigorous caress of badger-hair bristles on the cheek and neck; to pause, lean toward the mirror and then back away, to contemplate, examine, and proceed; and, not least of all, to maintain control while being at every moment thrillingly and perilously close to a momentary lapse of discipline; to risk--nay, to invite--the consequences of diverging one's hand even the slightest amount from a direction precisely orthogonal to the cutting edge, which lapse results in a wound that will bleed off and on for the rest of the day--all of these considerations, plus others I have not even thought of (or are too personal to divulge), have made shaving a private celebration. A dreary duty has become a selfish ritual, an indulgence. For a few minutes, the close, humid fog of dissipating shower steam and a clean, invigorating, soapy scent transport me to another time and place, one in which men wear hats, hold the door open for ladies, and speak quickly, wittily, and sparingly. In essence, I am carried away into a black-and-white movie starring Humphrey Bogart.

To all my male friends out there who are, perhaps by default or inertia, currently using the latest triple-bladed gizmos advertised during football games (or worse, using electric shavers), I certainly recommend rethinking the shaving process and considering some older technology. As motivation, I'll leave off with a link to a video demonstrating that the breathtaking perils of shaving are not limited to bloody slips of the hand.

NOTES

1. Brett and Kate McKay, "How to Shave Like Your Grandpa," The Art of Manliness, http://artofmanliness.com/2008/01/04/how-to-shave-like-your-grandpa/.

From the Government and Here to Help

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:07:00 +0000

The Ford Hall Forum recently made available the recording from the debate that we attended on the rain-drenched evening of September 29th in Boston.

The debate pitted ARI's Yaron Brook against David Callahan, the co-founder of Demos. As anyone who knows me would guess, I judged Dr. Brook's position to be rock-solid and consistent with a comprehensive, rational, and principled worldview while Mr. Callahan's was concrete-bound, pragmatic, and "but"-laden. (By "but"-laden, I mean filled with craven, unprincipled compromises following the explicit or implicit pattern, "Freedom is nice, but . . .," "Justice is fine, but . . ., " etc. Actually, come to think of it, such compromises are not merely unprincipled but anti-principled, designed to attack and subvert a principle. In effect, the speaker pretends to stand by an abstract principle so long as it is shackled just a bit by his "nuanced," middle-of-the-road stance--such shackling being all that is required to completely undermine the principle.)

Judge for yourself.

video platform video management video solutions video player

A Kiss

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 09:59:00 +0000

I came across this marvelous quote while browsing the Merriam-Webster web site.

A kiss is a lovely trick, designed by nature, to stop speech when words become superfluous.- Ingrid Bergman

NOTES

Image credit, Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/top-ten-lists/top-10-favorite-quotations-about-words/top10_favquote_wbsuperfluous.jpg).

Feel-good Football

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:56:00 +0000

I saw this clip on the football news programs yesterday and it brought a smile to my face. It’s the kind of scene that would strain credulity if it happened in a movie: Guy catches touchdown pass; guy runs the entire length of the field to the other team’s cheerleaders; guy hands one special cheerleader (who happens to be his girlfriend) the ball and gives her a great big victory hug. (Well, it wasn’t exactly a victory hug, since his team got crushed.)

Check out the story at NFL.com.

Sometimes, life can be a chick flick.

UPDATES
I removed the YouTube link, which infringed upon NFL copyright, and replaced it with an image from NFL.com.

Mere Hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:30:00 +0000

One of the incisive graphics that circulated on the Internet recently is a photograph titled, sarcastically, “Down with Evil Corporations.” The photo vividly illustrates the irony of an “Occupy Wall Street” mob shouting their protests of capitalism . . . all while using the products of the very capitalism they denounce.

Image from BigGovernment.com

It is perfectly valid to shine a light upon the ignorance and hypocrisy of the anti-capitalist crowd, and images like the one above are excellent concrete encapsulations of the protesters’ sheep-like innocence of facts and historical context. But in doing so it is important to keep in mind that there are deeper issues at stake than mere hypocrisy.

The reason I point this out is that on the surface, this common-sense criticism of the “Occupy Wall Street” mobs might seem to share ground with another famous (or infamous) argument that made the rounds on the Internet recently: Elizabeth Warren’s quote, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own, etc.”

Image from BookWormRoom.com.

Superficially, these arguments may seem similar. The anti-capitalists have no grounds to criticize capitalism while snapping photographs with Sony cameras, shaving with Gillette razors, and wearing clothes from The Gap. In turn, capitalists have no grounds to criticize the government and high taxes while using public roads to transport goods, hiring workers educated in public schools, and feeling safe in their factories because of police protection. (Actually, Warren’s argument goes much further than merely accusing the rich of criticizing the government; her explicit goal is to seize a “big hunk” of producers’ wealth.) Both arguments amount to the idea that it is improper to simultaneously benefit from and complain about some condition or institution.

However, to unite these two arguments would be a logical error; it would constitute an attempt to integrate concretes by non-essentials. When generalizing, it is necessary to apply the mental process of abstraction--but in doing so, one must not focus on non-essential attributes at the cost of fundamental principles. The mistake that would be made in attempting to unite Warren’s criticism of businessmen with that of bloggers’ and pundits’ criticisms of the “Occupy Wall Street” protesters is to gloss over the content of those criticisms.

The fundamental principle here is force. The "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators voluntarily use the fruits of a free society to complain about that free society. Under capitalism, nobody--including Google, Apple, IBM, Proctor & Gamble, Exxon-Mobil, Alcoa, DuPont, Hewlett Packard, 3M, Abercrombie & Fitch, WalMart, the local supermarket, barbershop, bodega, plumber, service station, or lemonade stand--can force you to use their products. The only way they can obtain your business is by offering you value--a value that you judged to be greater than the money you paid for it. No matter how much one believes big companies to have the “upper hand” over the “little guy,” it is not force. On the contrary, the more the products of “Big Oil,” “Big Pharma,” “Big Food,” etc. are recognized to be vital human needs, the more crucial it is to identify the political freedom that makes such voluntary transactions possible.

In contrast, a government by its very nature can only apply force. It is all they do. Force is the raison d’etre of governments; compulsion is all they bring to the table. When government force is used appropriately (i.e. in a retaliatory manner) via the police, armed forces, and court system, it serves to safeguard individual rights. When government force is used inappropriately (i.e. in an initiated manner), which includes any and all intrusions into the economy, education, and morality, it violates individual rights.

The first thing to be observed about Warren’s comment is that she conjoins proper (e.g. police) and improper (e.g. roads and education) functions of government without distinguishing between the two. But the point most relevant to this discussion is Warren’s accusation that the wealthy use government services without paying for them. (She had the brazen mendacity to say “the rest of us” paid for roads, education, etc., when in fact the wealthiest citizens shoulder the biggest tax load by far.) This disregards the fact that such “services” are forced upon all of us. Productive citizens are compelled to pay for government programs whether they like it or not.

Elizabeth Warren’s argument amounts to using the fact that the wealthy were forced to use the “services” of an intrusive government in the past as a pretext to force them to pay for still more government intrusions. These new “services,” being ever more difficult to avoid, serve as justification for the next generation of government intrusions, and so on. Ms. Warren’s declaration follows, in all relevant aspects, the form of a protection racket. Whether or not the self-righteous and thuggish manner with which she delivered it also follows the style of a protection racket may be judged by observing her performance directly.[1]

Those who condemn the “Occupy Wall Street” mob for their hatred of capitalism are right for the same reason that Elizabeth Warren is wrong. The fundamental issue is not mere hypocrisy but political liberty, of which Warren is an explicit enemy and most members of the mob are unthinking antagonists.

NOTES

1. See the YouTube video, “Elizabeth Warren on Fair Taxation,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag.

An Interesting Omission

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:18:00 +0000

In a brief post called "Presidential Plagiarist?" Ira Stoll was sharp enough to notice that in Barack Obama's "jobs speech," the president made a point that he pretty clearly took from the new book by Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum without giving any attribution to the authors. Now, considering that Mr. Obama is hell bent on destroying our country and the future of Americans, plagiarism is far from the greatest of his offenses, but what caught my eye is what the president did not lift from the passage.

Stoll quotes a paragraph from That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World It invented and How We Can Come Back, in which Friedman and Mandelbaum make the following basic argument. (Below, I am paraphrasing and condensing the authors' statement to clarify the point I am going to make.)[1]

President Lincoln's administration passed several pieces of legislation to spur the transition from an agragrian to an industrial society:(1) the Homestead Act of 1862,(2) legislation related to the transcontinental railway,(3) the creation of the National Academy of Sciences, and(4) the establishment of land grant colleges.

In his speech, the President made nearly the identical statement. (Again, I am paraphrasing.)

President Lincoln's administration passed several pieces of legislation to spur the transition from an agragrian to an industrial society:(1) legislation related to the transcontinental railway,(2) the creation of the National Academy of Sciences, and(3) the establishment of land grant colleges.

Do you notice anything missing in the president's speech? Mr. Obama conspicuously dropped the Homestead Act from the items that Friedman and Mandelbaum had listed. Interesting, is it not? The Homestead Act is the one piece of legislation out of the four Friedman and Mandelbaum mentioned that does not constitute government meddling in the economy, science, or education--and Mr. Obama left it out.[2]

I can think of only two reasons why the president may have done so. Either he simply forgot it, being unable to mentally grasp or retain any freedom-respecting policies like the Homestead Act, or he deliberately omitted it because in his worldview, the purpose of government is to command and control individuals, not to set them free. Either way, it is interesting to see that Mr. Obama can't even get something right when he is copying others' work.

NOTES

1. Ira Stoll, "Presidential Plagiarist?", Future of Capitalism, September 8, 2011, http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2011/09/presidential-plagiarist.

2. The Homestead Act is a good example of government functioning properly.

In her essay, "The Property Status of Airwaves," Ayn Rand wrote, "A notable example of the proper method of establishing private ownership from scratch, in a previously ownerless area, is the Homestead Act of 1862, by which the government opened the western frontier for settlement and turned 'public land' over to private owners. The government offered a 160-acre farm to any adult citizen who would settle on it and cultivate it for five years, after which it would become his property. Although that land was originally regarded, in law, as 'public property,' the method of its allocation, in fact, followed the proper principle (in fact, but not in explicit ideological intention). The citizens did not have to pay the government as if it were an owner; ownership began with them, and they earned it by the method which is the source and root of the concept of 'property': by working on unused material resources, by turning a wilderness into a civilized settlement. Thus, the government, in this case, was acting not as the owner but as the custodian of ownerless resources who defines objectively impartial rules by which potential owners may acquire them.

This should have been the principle and pattern of the allocation of broadcasting frequencies."

From Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (New York: Signet, 1967), p. 124.

Attack Watch

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:53:00 +0000

I've seen some good responses from Americans who are not cowed by the latest snitch line that was established by Obama's minions--the "Obama for America" website, AttackWatch.

My favorite was from my wife:

Dear @attackwatch, I'd like report Reality and History: Both rail against Obama's central planning efforts. You should check them out.

Faith and Sacrifice

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 01:11:00 +0000

In his recent Forbes article, Richard Salsman made an excellent point that I wish I had thought of when I was writing my last post. On the subject of the September 11 attacks, he wrote:

While 9/11 also exhibited the evils of religion, most U.S. politicians and citizens responded by becoming still more religious. Most people also extol the alleged "self-sacrifice" of "first responders," not realizing how that dishonors the responders' love of life and liberty -- and implies that the suicidal jihadist-hijackers also were morally noble.[1]

That is quite true. To remain logically consistent, those who extol faith and sacrifice would have to reserve special praise for the terrorists themselves, who exemplify faith and sacrifice far more than do the civilized innocents and heroes that they murdered. It is under the banners of faith and sacrifice, in both religious and secular forms, that the worst horrors of history have been perpetrated.

With all respect and sympathy for the family members and friends of the victims, who have endured unimaginable pain, turning toward religion in the mourning of loved ones serves the interests of their killers. Seeking succor in God--seeking everything in God--and rejecting reason is precisely what Islam demands.

NOTES

1. Richard M. Salsman, "Why Washington Resists Victory in a Post-9/11 World," Forbes, Spetember 11, 2011, http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/09/11/why-washington-resists-victory-in-a-post-911-world/.

Ten Years

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 17:36:00 +0000

Ten years ago, a band of Muslims attacked the United States of America. In the ten years since, the semi-free governments of the world have done exactly nothing about it except to surrender, yield, appease, and apologize.

George W. Bush immediately (and correctly) called for retaliation against the regimes that harbor and support the killers--but he did it in speech only, not in action, then used his years in office to subvert it all by insisting that we are not a war with Islam and that it is a religion of peace. After this, Americans enthusiastically placed into office the most overtly un-American president in history, Barack Obama, a man who both figuratively[1] and literally bows to the leaders of Muslim nations (as did Mr. Bush). Ten years after the atrocity, we hear Tony Blair boast that he reads the Qur’an every day.[2] (Can one imagine Winston Churchill, ten years after the Blitz, boasting that he reads Mein Kampf every day?)

September 11th was not a tragedy; it was an atrocity. It was not a mass murder perpetrated by mere crazy people, disconnected from larger ideas, as the apologists would have us believe. It was an explicit attack of Islamists acting as Islamists upon the institutions of the West. Robert Spencer summarizes it well:

We were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, by Islamic jihadists who explained, in writings they left behind, that they were committing mass murder in the name of Islam, inspired by the teachings of Islam, and in defense, as they saw it, of Islam. They struck the United States in service of their hope of destroying it, and ultimately imposing upon the U.S., the West and the world an Islamic government that would rule according to Islamic law, which denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience and equality of rights for all people.[3]

The fact that mass murderers hijacked airplanes was all but forgotten amid the rush to insist that the murderers hijacked a religion--a “religion of peace.”

Islam is indeed a religion of peace in one and only respect: When every human being on the planet has yielded to Sharia law, devout Muslim men will at last consent to leave the rest of us in peace . . . to be the subjects of their cruelties, superstitions, appetites, and perversions. Until then, their holy commandment is to “slay the idolators wherever you find them.”(Sura 9:5)

Unlike Westerners, who with few exceptions do not understand the nature and purpose of the enemy, the jihadists know exactly whom they are fighting. In order to make room for Sharia, in order to achieve universal obedience to Allah, in order to enslave the human race to the will of Mohammed and his followers, it is necessary to destroy the human mind. One could hardly have picked a better target than the World Trade Center in New York City. The Twin Towers are--or rather, were--the embodiment of human achievement, set in the capital city of human achievement. Skyscrapers soar skyward with foundations that rest upon science and technology, which in turn rest upon trade, which in turn rests upon freedom, which in turn rests upon reason. The Towers were the conspicuous monoliths of modern civilization--the twin pinnacles of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution--and it is precisely those values that the jihadists wish to knock down. Free men do not obey Allah; thus, freedom must be destroyed.

It is beside the point to cite the fact that America has not been attacked on our soil since that infamous day in 2001. It is no matter to the Islamists if they knock down our institutions or if we will save them the trouble and do it for them. If David Letterman cannot crack a joke without being threatened by killers who are confident that they can get away with their threats, then we are losing--or have already lost--the war.

War, you may ask? What war? The “war on terror” is not a war. Only Congress can declare war, and our Congressmen lack the courage to do so, despite our enemy declaring war upon us at least as far back as the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. War cannot be declared upon a tactic, terrorism. War must be declared upon an enemy: the states that support Islamic totalitarianism.

In the aftermath of September 11, there was much talk about the failure to “connect the dots,” aimed largely at the intelligence agencies and politicians who “let this happen.” But it is absurd to blame intelligence agents for failing to “connect the dots” when the weight of the mainstream intellectual elite is overwhelming dedicated to disconnecting dots--which is to say, performing the mental contortions required to hold countless Muslim terrorist attacks as disparate and unconnected events, and evading the meaning of the explicit goals and intents of our enemies.

If there is such a thing as a history book in the future--which, in this self-loathing culture bent on submitting meekly to a multiculturalist elite, is no sure thing--the men who are still permitted to read books will be amazed at these inexplicable events of our time. They will see the United States of America, the most glorious product of the Enlightenment values of reason and freedom, being defeated by a marauding band of anachronistic barbarians.

Why, future historians will wonder, was the strongest nation in the world militarily simultaneously the weakest morally? Stranger still, why was this so when the United States was objectively the most moral nation in history--the nation explicitly founded upon individual rights, the nation born of the idea that all men must be free to live their lives as they judge best? How could mobs of primitive, superstitious thugs who explicitly embrace death cause a population of civilized people who want to live and be happy to doubt themselves?

The answer is that thanks to the philosophical trends of the last century or so, Americans on the whole have lost the moral conviction that we are right--and have lost the moral courage to say so.

But it must be said: The American way, by which I mean the explicit, constitutional enshrinement of individual rights as the law of the land, is superior in every possible respect to the Islamist way, by which I mean the enshrinement of Mohammedan commands as the will of Allah. Reason is superior to faith. Thinking is superior to believing. Freedom is superior to slavery. Life is superior to death. Trade is superior to murder. Self-interest is superior to sacrifice. Capitalism is superior to theocracy. Acting on one’s judgement is superior to obeying the Qur’an (or Bible, Torah, etc.). The freedom to speak one’s mind (including the freedom to offend someone) is superior to the fear of being beheaded for doing so. Respectfully holding a door open for a beautiful, bare-shouldered woman as she passes is superior to beating her to death for not covering her face.[4]

For holding these apparently controversial opinions, I would be condemned as a “bigot” by nearly every journalist, university professor, and self-proclaimed enlightened intellectual, and condemned to death by perhaps a billion people on the planet.

As Daniel Pipes has accurately identified, Islamist terrorism does not constitute a clash of civilizations but a clash of civilization and barbarism. The barbarians cannot possibly defeat us militarily, but they can defeat us by default if we do not stand up for what is right. Ten years after the September 11th attacks, we as a nation have yet to do so.

NOTES

[1] See, for example, Mr. Obama’s 2009 speech in Egypt, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-cairo-university-6-04-09.

[2] “I read the Holy Quran everyday: Tony Blair,” The Express Tribune, http://tribune.com.pk/story/188297/i-read-the-holy-quran-everyday-former-british-pm-tony-blair/.

[3] Robert Spencer, “A decade out, we’re losing,” Jihad Watch, September 11, 2011, http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/09/a-decade-out-were-losing.html.

[4] I used the term “is superior” here in a terse series of sentences only to emphasize the point from the aspect of cultural evaluation--namely, that America is superior to her enemies. Every sentence actually understates the case. For instance, “reason is superior to faith” hardly captures the fact that reason is the only means of obtaining knowledge and faith is absolutely impotent. Faith is not merely inferior to reason; it is nothing.

Happy Atlas Shrugged Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:44:00 +0000

Cool! I extend a hat tip to The Objective Standard for reminding me that Ayn Rand started writing Atlas Shrugged on this day, September 2, sixty-five years ago.

OCON 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 12:46:00 +0000

We returned from this year’s Objectivist Conferences a few days ago, so here I will post a few notes about it. I had a really wonderful time. The conference somehow seemed a little more subdued than the last OCON we attended (Boston, 2009), an atmosphere Lynne marked even more than I did, but it was still very inspiring and informative for me.

Yaron Brook set the theme—actually two themes—in his opening lecture: Objectivism is both radical and hard. This is not news, of course, but the two adjectives, radical and hard, kept resurfacing during the lectures. Ayn Rand’s discoveries may seem like common sense—indeed, my reaction, when I first devoured the novels and the non-fiction almost thirty years ago, was that it all seemed so obvious—but in fact the material is difficult and takes years to fully integrate. (I am nowhere near having fully integrated the material myself.) Ayn Rand did all the heavy lifting, but good scholarship is needed today: books, speakers, university positions, etc. And because we are badly outnumbered by the bad guys (i.e. collectivists, statists, and mystics), we who fight for reason and freedom must be excellent. We need to be fighters, to have fire in the belly, to be unafraid.

My “takeaway” from the conference is this. To flourish in life, it is enough to be right in my personal life. However, if I am to participate in a change in the culture—if I am to assist in arresting and reversing the momentum of the civilized world as it hurtles toward statism—it is not enough to simply be right. I must be able to demonstrate and convey the rightness of reason and rational self-interest. The task is nothing short of reversing at least two thousand years of moral inertia. I’ve been living my life and working hard at my job, but I need to accomplish more on this change-the-culture front.

One conference attendee asked an interesting question. Paraphrasing, it went something like this: “It has been said that great ideas are first ignored, then ridiculed, then opposed, then accepted. Where in this progression are we [i.e. Objectivism] now?” It seems pretty clear to me that we are well past the “ignored” stage and have moved into the “ridiculed” stage, perhaps even to the “opposed” stage. An increasing portion of the attention Ayn Rand is getting is serious; her ideas are often disagreed with, but they are represented more or less correctly quite often. This is tremendous progress. Naturally, there still exists an enormous hostility to Rand among certain mentalities, both on the left and the right, who reserve their most revolting vitriol for the ideas that they seem to recognize are the greatest threat to their irrationality (indeed, they are correct on this count), but it has an increasing tone of desperation.

_____

On Independence Day, John Ridpath did a moving reading of Thomas Jefferson’s last letter, which was written in June 1826. (If you’ve ever heard Ridpath speak, you know how dramatic his deep, sonorous voice is.) The ailing Jefferson was writing to regretfully decline an invitation to attend a celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of signing of the Declaration of Independence. The whole letter is amazing, and it includes this gem:

May it [i.e. the Declaration] be to the world, what I believe it will be . . . the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves . . . All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.[1]

Amazing.

_____

In his lecture, “Individual Rights and Health Care Reform: A Patient’s Perspective,” John David Lewis shared his personal experiences that he had with a team of doctors during a recent serious illness, linking his observations to the wider ideas of freedom and individual rights. It is no surprise that doctors generally exhibit an extraordinary orientation to reality, a “deeply and profoundly Aristotelian approach,” as Dr. Lewis put it. The subjugation of doctors, other health care professionals, and patients to Washington bureaucrats is an evil that is almost too monstrous to fathom. Government rules are placed between minds and reality; they are obstructions, thwarting men’s abilities to judge and act. Government intervention is nothing short of an attack on life itself.

_____

I believe the gem of the conference for me was Thomas Shoebotham’s wonderful set of lectures, “Bach and the 19^th Century.” Shoebotham covered Bach’s background and major influences, such as Buxtehude and Pachelbel, as well as the foreign influences from Italy (Corelli and Vivaldi) and France (Lully and Rameau). He reviewed some technical material—counterpoint and fugue, the chaconne, the passacaglia, and the German chorale—then traced the influence that Bach’s music had on other composers, from Beethoven and Mozart, to Mendelssohn (who almost single-handedly revived Bach’s music from popular obscurity), to Chopin, Brahms, and Wagner. He made a lot of fascinating connections, and it was thrilling and very instructive to hear Shoebotham play excerpts on piano and cello, both instruments of which he plays quite proficiently.

_____

In “The Culture of ‘Package-Dealing’,” Peter Schwartz lectured upon the topic of anti-concepts, which are conceptual “package deals” that have the purpose of destroying legitimate concepts. They function by the implicit substitution of essentials by non-essentials. Classification by non-essential properties paralyses an unwitting mind, obstructing his ability to distinguish the proper referents to a concept from improper ones, and crucially, impairing his ability to identify what ought to be regarded as essential.

A few examples that were given in the lecture will illustrate the idea. The term “judgmentalism,” for instance, obliterates rational judgment; all judgment, including that which is warranted and rational, is condemned under the sweeping rule that “one must not judge.” The concept of a “stakeholder” destroys that of a shareholder, diluting ownership—actual property rights—with the idea that many others have claims to “a piece of the pie.” The word “simplistic” obliterates principled thinking; the practice of integrating information and identifying fundamentals, as opposed to holding all facts as isolated and unrelated, is thus derided as unjustified over-simplification. The term “divisive” silences principled arguments against mainstream irrational ideas (e.g. multiculturalism).

And of course, the archetype of package deals is selfishness. In this case, a new word was not coined, but a new meaning supplanted the proper one. Selfishness should mean a rational and moral concern for one’s own life and values; it is a virtue. But today, selfishness has come to mean “a pursuit of desires at the expense of others.” This is a disastrous package deal. It lumps together the honest man who works for a living with the thug who picks pockets in a crowd. It blurs the distinction between the entrepreneur who opens a bottle of champagne to celebrate a success and the junkie who shoot heroin to temporarily satisfy an urge to escape his miserable existence. The life-sustaining virtue of long range self-interest is thus replaced by the notion that selfishness is hedonistic or predatory, which serves the purpose of destroying the virtue.

_____

Perhaps the most challenging and rewarding class I took was Jason Rheins course, “The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant (part 2): Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Rheins pointed out that it is Kant more than anybody else who in his ethics has influenced subsequent intellectuals. Rheins did an excellent job covering a lot of difficult material in only three sessions: Kant’s distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge and the epistemological division of the numenal and the phenomenal; the derivation of morality from “practical reason”; a contrast of Kant’s deontological (duty-based) ethics with axiological (value-based) ethics; the concepts of acting from duty as opposed to in accordance with duty, and the resulting moral significance of each; the distinction between moral imperatives that Kant called “hypothetical” from those he called “categorical”; and the “formula for humanity,” the “highest good.” I had had a basic idea of some of this material before, but this course provided a lot of clarification and depth.

_____

The one optional class that Lynne and I took together was John David Lewis’ course, “The History of Ancient Greece: The Early Fourth Century.” (We love Dr. Lewis. He is one of the most brilliant, impassioned, and courageous intellectuals alive today—a hero worthy of the Greeks that he knows so thoroughly. He greeted us warmly even though he hadn’t seen us in two years.) The material he covered was quite interesting—I know a fair amount about the 5^th century BC, but I was inclined to regard the 4^th century as nothing but a decline for Greece, which is a rather conventional viewpoint. Dr. Lewis sees this as a profound mistake, saying he can “make a good case that the 4^th century has it hands down over the 5^th!” When the facts are integrated properly, a few important ideas emerge. For one thing, Athens recovered rapidly after the Peloponnesian War, returning to prosperity—and crucially, when it constructed a second Athenian League, it faced and solved many of the problems that had plagued its first attempt with the Delian League in the previous century. (The Athenians did not have the concept of individual rights, of course, but many of their considerations struck remarkably close to a respect for freedom.) This period also saw the decline of statist Sparta, as its façade of invincibility—the “Spartan mirage”—crumbled to expose a rotten core. The Spartan decline corresponded to an ascendancy of Thebes, the great general Epaminondas, and the dramatic liberation of Messenia in 369 BC.

The tale is ultimately tragic, however. The Greeks never quite solved the federalist problem; that is, they never quite resolved the desire for autonomia—autonomy and independence for the polis—with the practical benefits of a joint defense for all of Greece. This left them vulnerable for what was to come: the rise of Macedonia.

_____

Lynne and I both really enjoyed the unexpected surprise of meeting Luc Travers, a teacher at Van Damme Academy, and author of the book, Touching the Art. (Lynne has already read the book, and I have now moved it closer to the top of my pile!) Travers is infectiously enthusiastic, and he generously invited our daughters to his brief presentation (which turned into a standing-room-only performance) of his approach to art, which we all enjoyed.

_____

John Allison, who is one of the indefatigable champions of Objectivism and former chairman and CEO of BB&T, presented a lecture on “Teamwork and Independence,” which presented a view that is undoubtedly unconventional in the business world. In essence, Allison refuted the pat expression, “there is no ‘I’ in ‘team’.” (Those are my words, not Allison’s.) His system is meritorious, rewarding independent thinking, honesty, and productivity.

_____

Another important point for me to keep in mind, which came out in a lecture Dr. Brook and Don Watkins presented called “”The End of Big Government,” is that it is essential to differentiate capitalism from the mixed economy we have today. It is obvious to Objectivists that the mixed economy is not capitalism, but the general public is likely to believe it is, particularly since that is what they are told by their teachers and the news media.

It is thus crucial to demonstrate the win-win nature of unfettered capitalism and the trader principle. And of course, the deeper message is the morality of capitalism; at its root is the protection of individual rights, the elimination of initiated physical force in human relationships, the selfish pursuit of happiness for every person. After all, as Dr. Brook said, “We are the heirs of the Enlightenment.”

_____

I took Harry Binswanger’s class, “Principles,” which had a lot of challenging material that it will take me a while to mentally “chew” on. The basic issue regarding principled thinking is that of fundamentality, which is established from the perspective of hierarchical causal (and, I believe, logical) dependencies. Principles are vital tools of cognition; they offer a condensed view of all consequences to particular actions, and thus permit long-range thinking.

I would guess that much of Dr. Binswanger’s presentation is based upon material from his forthcoming book, which is still in the editing stage, so I am very much looking forward to its appearance.

_____

One final note on the conference: I would be remiss not to mention the great time we had meeting some old friends and some new friends. On every morning but one, Lynne and I hit the hotel gym at oh-six-hundred hours, where we met two or three friends to do some CrossFit training. We had the pleasure of making some new acquaintances at an HBL get-together, had some nice conversations while milling about in the hotel lobby, and were thrilled to have lunch and dinner with some friends that we had previously only known online. We even went salsa dancing with a few friends one evening, which ended with a limousine ride back to the hotel. (I had fun, though I admit the deepest conceivable incompetence in salsa dancing, not to mention an utter inability to hear a single word of conversation in the din.)

NOTES

1. “Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman,” Monticello, June 24, 1826, Library of Congress, “http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/rcwltr.html”.

Independence Day 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:49:00 +0000

To the Founding Fathers, there was no authority higher than the individual mind, not King George, not God, not society. Reason, wrote Ethan Allen, is "the only oracle of man," and Thomas Jefferson advised us to "fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God." That is the meaning of independence: trust in your own judgment, in reason; do not sacrifice your mind to the state, the church, the race, the nation, or your neighbors.[1]

This excerpt from an article Michael Berliner wrote a couple of years ago reminds us how radical were the ideas of the Founding Fathers. Shamefully, these ideas are nearly as radical (and possibly more so) now as they were then, a testament to how much philosophical ground has been lost in the last century or so. If we are to save the country in which freedom has been most dearly earned, we must convince Americans to "question with boldness" the overwhelming demands to accept sacrifice as noble and moral, and to pursue their own selfish interests, their own happiness, with the confidence that it is right to do so.

This I address to the Americans of the world, where you may still be found: Happy Independence Day.

NOTES

Michael Berliner, "Put the Independence Back in Independence Day,"1 Jul 2009, Capitalism Magazine, "http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/5217-put-the.html".

Image from capmag.com.

Jim Williams and Bob Pease

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:00:00 +0000

I was shocked to discover that two of the great minds of analog circuitry—two of my engineering heroes—died recently in the span of a few days. Jim Williams of Linear Technology died of a massive stroke that he had suffered on June 10^th. Then, incredibly, Bob Pease of National Semiconductor was killed in a car crash after leaving Williams’ memorial service.

Both of these men were unquestionably brilliant in the field of electronics, authors of books, countless application notes, and articles. But what made them stand out in my mind is their unwavering focus upon practical, economical results. These were not academic geniuses publishing esoterica but real engineers that cared about getting their products to work well in their customers’ circuits. Both were outspoken proponents of getting “down and dirty” with the soldering iron, building prototypes and measuring the circuitry itself instead of relying on computer models, and above all, thinking about what is happening in the circuit.

I met Jim Williams once, probably about twenty years ago, at a Linear Technology seminar. I don’t remember if I exchanged more than a couple of words of greeting with him. I was still something of a rookie engineer, and I believe I was a little star-struck. This awe had nothing to do with his personality, though; he was as approachable as it is possible to be.

Williams was a prolific author of applications notes, some of which have come to be favorites of mine. If you’re not an electrical engineer, you may not be familiar with application notes. Essentially, they are technical articles published by integrated circuit companies that give practical advice on the use of the company’s products. Now such articles are available in PDF form on the internet, of course, but in the “old days,” which is to say, the ‘90’s and earlier, application notes were compiled and bound into beautiful soft-cover “data books,” which were available for no charge. (The semiconductor companies would give them away in the hopes that engineers would learn about their products and be that much more likely to use them in designs.)

I accumulated several hundred data books over the years, most of which I have since discarded, but the data books of four companies—Analog Devices, Texas Instruments, National Semiconductor, and Linear Technology—stood far above the rest, and they still populate my shelves. The applications notes of these four companies are classics, generally transcending the ordinary by providing advice and techniques that are widely applicable to all aspects of circuit design. Jim Williams was among the best authors of these notes. His writings were clear, completely free of academic vanity, and peppered with his unique wit and wisdom.

Some glimpses into the mind of Jim Williams.

I saw Bob Pease once, when he was a speaker at a National Semiconductor seminar, though I don’t believe that I actually introduced myself. I own an excellent book that he wrote, Troubleshooting Analog Circuits, and I am sure that many of the little techniques and habits I currently employ in my designs are derived from Pease’s writings. One article alone, a little gem called “Understand Capacitor Soakage to Optimize Analog Systems,” has revolutionized my designs in sample-and-hold circuits and analog integrators.

Interestingly, my only contact with him was an exchange of letters many years ago. Unfortunately, I cannot find the correspondence in my files (I’ll write a separate post if I ever find it), but I wrote him a note objecting to a point he made in one of his columns—I think he had advocated government interference in an area that ought to be free from meddling. All I remember is that in my note to Pease I believe I mentioned Ayn Rand and certainly quoted Cypress Semiconductor’s T.J. Rodgers (another hero of mine); in his reply to me, Pease was unmoved, writing that T.J. Rodgers could “go to hell”! In any case, this exchange did not significantly detract from my opinion of Pease; if anything, it emphasized his passion. The fact that he even bothered to write and mail a reply impressed me. If his great precision and independence in thinking does not necessarily extend to philosophical matters, he is hardly unique in that. He remains an extraordinary figure and one of my great engineering heroes.

Some glimpses into the mind of Bob Pease.

NOTES

1. Paul Rako, “Analog guru Jim Williams dies after a stroke,” EDN Magazine, June 13, 2011, “http://www.edn.com/article/518496-Analog_guru_Jim_Williams_dies_after_stroke.php”.

2. Joseph Esposito, “Bob Pease Remembered For Pease Porridge And A Whole Lot More,” Electronic Design Magazine, June 20, 2011, “http://electronicdesign.com/print/analog-and-mixed-signal/Bob-Pease-Remembered-For-Pease-Porridge-And-A-Whole-Lot-More.aspx”.

IMAGE CREDITS

Credit goes to Linear Technology, specifically the data book "1990 Linear Applications Handbook - Volume 1," from which I captured a few pages of Jim Williams writings and drawings. From the EDN magazine web site I obtained the image of Jim Williams, and the picture of Bob Pease comes from the National Semiconductor web site. Finally, the representative images of Pease's column are from some clippings I saved from Electronic Design magazine.

A Dirty Word

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Sun, 22 May 2011 15:38:00 +0000

Shortly after formally announcing his entry into the pool of Republicans running for president, Newt Gingrich appeared on "Meet the Press" to present his views, presumably for the purpose of motivating Americans to vote for him in 2012.

Mr. Gingrich, the former speaker of the House who led a conservative resurgence in the 1990's, said the Republican Medicare plan was "too big a jump" for Americans and compared it to the health care overhaul championed by President Obama.

"I'm against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change," Mr. Gingrich said . . . "I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," he said. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."[1]

It would be hard to improve upon these few sentences in articulating a thoroughly middle-of-the-road position. In case there were any lingering thoughts that the "Gingrich Revolution" of 1994 signaled anything revolutionary about the man himself, Mr. Gingrich wishes to reassure us that he is fundamentally a compromising milquetoast--which is to say, he is a suitable Republican candidate.

The essence of Mr. Gingrich's position is that in the midst of rampant federal spending, meddling in the economy, and regulation of every aspect of citizens' lives--all of which has been increasing alarmingly for at least the last two presidential administrations--the proper position to take is: hold the line. The problem, according to Mr. Gingrich, is "radical change" itself, not whether changes are for good or ill.

The real evil of Mr. Gingrich's position can be found in the last words that I quoted: his reference to a "free society." The implication of Gingrich's statement is that anything "radical"--even the restoration of freedom and individual rights in America, which today is about as radical as anything I can imagine--would constitute an undesirable "imposition" upon citizens. I have made the point many times that Republicans are far worse than Democrats in that they ostensibly defend liberty, free markets, capitalism but then ultimately compromise the principles to which they give lip service. This is dreadfully destructive because it undermines liberty; it guarantees all the failures of the welfare state while ensuring that freedom gets the blame. At least Democrats have the honesty to be overt enemies of freedom.

The most alarming part of Newt Gringrich's remarks is that it makes me wonder if his calculations might be correct. He is surely a savvy politician so it is troubling that he has the confidence to present himself as a Washington compromiser in the face of a Tea Party movement that, though far from consistent, is the only bright spot in the political landscape. Can it really be true that so few Americans recognize the peril of the massive government intrusion--the precipitous withering of freedom--that has taken place under Bush-Obama? Can it be true that Republicans will rally around a message of compromise? I hope Mr. Gingrich has guessed badly.

I was encouraged by a recent Reuters special report (hat tip to HBL) that showed that conventional Republicans continue to be punished for plodding on with their compromising ways. The article hit the nail on the head: "The trouble is while compromise is a trademark of Washington politics, to many Tea Partiers it is a dirty word."[2]

The Reuters article included a cute quip that actually revealed more than it may have intended. "'The Ohio state Republican Party would screw up a free lunch in a soup kitchen,' said Ralph King of the Cleveland Tea Party."[2] Perhaps so. However, the real question is not why the Republicans would "screw up" a free lunch but why they are driven to offer a free lunch in the first place. A "free lunch" is a product and apt symbol of the "progressive" socialist policies that have plagued America off and on for more than a century. A "free lunch"--which constitutes the forced "redistribution" of property from those who have earned it to those who have not--is a symbol proudly held aloft by Democrats and (usually) rejected by Republicans. But to the continuing shame of Republicans, even as they decry the "free lunch" they give it moral sanction. Lip service aside, Republicans act at root upon the same principles of collectivism and sacrifice that underpin the Democrats: the idea that the needs of the poor, the elderly, the "underpriviledged," etc. trump the rights of individuals. Republicans routinely invoke the rights to life and liberty in their speeches but compromise at every turn, ultimately asking meekly for simply a little less sacrifice than their Democratic colleagues demand.

If the country is to be saved, it will not come about by simply taking the foot off the political accelerator pedal as we plunge toward a full-blown welfare state, which is what Republicans are currently offering. It will require a widespread cultural shift away from a morality that holds sacrifice as a virtue, either proudly or apologetically.

NOTES

1. “Gingrich Calls G.O.P.’s Medicare Plan Too Radical,” The New York Times, 15 May 2011, “http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/us/politics/16gingrich.html?scp=1&sq=Medicare%20Plan%20Too%20Radical&st=cse”.

2. "Special report: Stuck between the Tea Party and a hard place," Reuters, 17 May 2011, "http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE74G37C20110517?irpc=932".

Addendum to Movie Review: Atlas Shrugged Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:16:00 +0000

Having seen Atlas Shrugged Part 1 for a second time, I have a few more comments to add to my original review.

I still think Francisco’s character is totally wrong—too slouchy to convince me that there’s a vibrant, burning intelligence hiding behind the playboy façade—but I didn’t find him quite as objectionable as I did on the first viewing. (Maybe Jsu Garcia would have been better playing the part of Owen Kellogg instead of Francisco.) Dr. Akston’s character, on the other hand, seemed even worse than my original dismal estimation, exhibiting not only an inexplicable rudeness and hostility to Dagny but a manner that is fundamentally irrational and mystical. Even his clothing—a white, loose shirt and trousers—suggested this; I don’t remember if they showed his feet, but it would have been fitting for him to be as barefoot as a Buddhist ascetic. The character is more suited to shack up with Ivy Starnes than to roam the halls of Patrick Henry University.

The music, which I originally called only “sufficient,” actually rose substantially in my opinion, now that I paid a little more attention to it. I think it contributes to the drama more than I previously gave it credit for—especially now that I marked so many more failings in the script.

Ah, the script. The script is considerably worse than I first noticed, and in particular, the dialogue is atrocious. During my first viewing, while soaking up the visual presentation, I think I was “filling in the blanks” quite a lot, subconsciously supplementing an impoverished script because I know the novel so well. This time, the problems were much more apparent to me.

In some good articles I read I had come upon some criticisms of the language that gave as an example Dagny uttering, “That’s depressing.” I hadn’t remembered the dialogue being that bad, but sure enough, Dagny does indeed say, "That's depressing," . . . twice! (To my relief, Dagny and Rearden never resorted to “texting” each other, so there were no invocations of “LOL” or “OMG” in their discourse.) I cannot fathom why the filmmakers thought replacing Ayn Rand’s precise dialogue with a folksy and even ungrammatical vernacular would constitute an improvement. If they thought “people just don’t talk like that these days,” then that merely adds to the long list of reasons for them to have set the movie in the 1940’s or 1950’s. And more to the point, if “people just don’t talk like that these days,” it is because people just don’t think these days, and there is no better solution to that than to present Ayn Rand’s ideas directly.

However well-intentioned the filmmakers may have been, dumbing down the language as they did serves no positive purpose. It simultaneously underestimates the intelligence of the average person (thus exhibiting the elitism of leftists and neo-conservatives—an elitism, by the way, that Ayn Rand never showed, contrary to accusations of such), and destroys the very substance of the material: It dilutes the meaning of ideas, reduces (or reverses) the significance of events, and perhaps above all, compromises the stature of the heroes. If the intent was to “reach” people by making the message more palatable to a public accustomed only to shades of gray, the very most that can be attained is to succeed with the “reach” at the expense of the message. It is like an art collector who, in order to display a brilliant sculptor’s masterpiece to the public, crushes it into dust so that it will fit in the box to ship to the gallery.

One final comment. I discovered something about the scriptwriters’ point of view at the end of my second viewing that is so contrary to the novel and to Ayn Rand’s philosophy that it didn’t occur to me even as a possibility after my first viewing. I could be wrong about this, but I think the final moments of the movie provide evidence for it. (I wish I had a transcript; my memory of it is not very good.) Toward the end of the film there are two voice-over sections—when John Galt addresses Ellis Wyatt and when Dagny looks out at the fire and screams—that articulate something to the effect of Atlantis being a place with little or no government for the industrialists of the world to finally go live out their lives in peace and prosperity.

The first time I heard this I took it for an inept attempt to condense and simplify material that really ought not to be addressed until Part 3; I caught the libertarian, “small government” overtones but I was mostly appalled by the almost criminal giveaway of the story's mystery. But in my second viewing, it dawned on me that this point was presented as if it were wrapping things up. And if that is so, it struck me that the filmmakers seem to think that the Atlantis of the novel is the end goal, as opposed to a temporary haven—a paradise for producers, as opposed to a refuge from a world perishing from altruism. (Did they read all the way to the end of the book, or did they quit before Galt’s speech?) This is a grievous and unforgivable error, especially considering the mindless canard, often parroted, that Ayn Rand advocated some sort of utopian society populated solely by Nietzschean übermenschen. Hopefully, the movie will spawn enough interest in Atlas Shrugged for people to go read what Ayn Rand actually wrote.

Movie Review: Atlas Shrugged Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 15:41:00 +0000

It could have been a lot worse.

That sentence effectively summarizes my view of the new Atlas Shrugged Part 1 movie, which Lynne and I attended on Friday night, though the appraisal probably rings a little too negative. In fact, I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and contrary to my expectation, I did not spend the whole ninety minutes or so on pins and needles waiting for some outrageous corruption to emerge. (This was probably due to hearing some positive comments ahead of time from one or two of the handful of people that I would trust with such judgments.) On a scale of 0.0 to 10.0, I give the movie a score of 7.0, which is a good score indeed.

So why is my summary, “It could have been a lot worse,” instead of, say, “I liked it very much”? My praise is tempered by the failure of the film to capture even an inkling of the philosophical depth of the novel--but then again, that may be an impossibly high standard to expect in today’s culture. So, I didn’t expect it, which left me free to simply enjoy what the filmmakers did decently.

Let me start by noting some of the things that I liked.

The audio-visual presentation was very pleasing. It was a thrill to see my favorite book come to life: the cityscapes of steel and glass; the rumbling thunder of wheels on Rearden metal; the awesome span of the bridge on the John Galt Line; the dark mystery of a rain-drenched stranger emerging from the shadows to speak unexpected words. As far as I remember, the music was, if not particularly notable, at least sufficient to support the drama. And what drama! It is almost impossible for me to distance myself from the book I know so well, but I believe the filmmakers succeeded in establishing the sense of adventure and suspense . . . without resorting to a car chase!

Another thing I liked was the casting of the two main characters, Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler. Personally, I’ve always imagined Hank Rearden as being taller, more gaunt, and much more rigid--equal parts United States Marine, lumberjack, and Jesuit priest--but Mr. Bowler’s portrayal grew on me during the course of the movie. By the end, I was satisfied and convinced that he’s good for the part. (I’m not sure his stature and demeanor would have worked if the sex part had been done correctly, or if Francisco had been well cast, but more on that later.)

I liked Ms. Schilling’s Dagny very much right from the very beginning. She was smart, serious, and quite good-looking in exactly the same way that I’ve always imagined. She has really terrific legs, too, which did not fall short of my mental picture. (However shallow or superficial that observation may seem, I insist upon its importance in the character.) Lynne was a little irritated with Schilling’s manner of speech, calling her a “slow-talker,” but I was not bothered by that. I’m glad she was chosen for the part.

Some of the villains were well cast, too. Michael Lerner plays a convincingly vile Wesley Mouch, evoking the condescending malice of Ted Kennedy or Barney Frank. I also liked Patrick Fischler's performance as Paul Larkin. Fischler delivers one of the most memorable lines of the film, provoking laughter from the audience. Rearden: “I am out just to make money.” Larkin, with a wry smile: “But you’re not supposed to say it.”

Now let me mention a few of the problems I saw with the film.

As much as I was pleased with the casting of Hank and Dagny, I was dismayed by the selection (or at least, the direction) of Jsu Garcia and Micheal O’Keefe as Francisco D’Anconia and Hugh Akston, respectively. I am not blaming the actors necessarily; perhaps they were directed to execute their roles as they did. O’Keefe appeared only briefly, but to me his Dr. Akston seemed more like a man that might be a mediocre teacher of beat literature than a man who was once a great professor of rational philosophy. The mystery he was supposed to develop during his on-screen moment was obliterated by his inexplicable rudeness to Dagny. I could not square this portrayal with my image of the competent, respectful professor from the Patrick Henry University, the father figure of three heroes.

My major character complaint, though, is with Francisco. Francisco is my favorite character in the book, and I admit it would be difficult to find an actor to live up to my image of him. But Mr. Garcia doesn’t come close. It’s not a matter of looks; the guy is handsome enough. He simply does not carry himself like Señor Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia would. My impression of Garcia’s Francisco is that the depraved playboy is the man’s natural state while the tormented lover is a role that he is forced to play--in other words, Garcia’s characterization is exactly opposite what it should be. Why do I think this? It’s hard to put my finger on. There is something round and soft about his features. His voice lacks strictness and precision; his manner is devoid of ferocity, and worse, the capacity for ferocity. Courtesy and etiquette is wanting--inconceivable in the real Francisco. I had the urge to shout at the screen to tell him to sit up straighter in his chair. If there is ever a Part 2, I cannot imagine this character saving a furnace in the mill or clashing with Rearden in Dagny’s apartment. He portrays a good playboy but an unconvincing titan.

Beyond these character issues, I think the filmmakers made a big mistake by not establishing the setting somewhat ambiguously in the mid-20th century, approximately the 1950’s. I read that there was a very practical reason--that it would have cost too much--and if that is the case, then so be it. But it’s a huge missed opportunity for some truly dazzling, vivid, and rich visual imagery. There is something automatically exotic and extraordinary about “retro” settings. It is an atmosphere tailor-made for a movie version of Atlas Shrugged: the age when trains and steam and diesel engines still mattered; the clean lines of mid-century modern furniture and architecture; the filigree of cigarette smoke framing a thoughtful man’s face as he exhales; the elegant simplicity of dress--men striding in hats, coats, and ties. (If all the men in the film had been wearing hats as was the habit in the 1950’s, then when the mysterious, shadowy man in a fedora appeared, it would not have been his hat that seemed unusual, competing for attention with his important words.) I am not a filmmaker, but it seems to me that casting a setting to a remote time provides an opportunity to slightly exaggerate the contrasts of light and dark, and thus, good and evil.

Furthermore, many of the basic plot issues would have made much more sense. For one thing, the very fact of a woman being an executive in a big company, commonplace today, would in the 1950’s have been correctly viewed as unusual enough to suggest an extraordinary strength in Dagny. The quality of discourse, too, would have benefited by moving back half a century. For instance, I liked Edi Gathegi’s portrayal of Eddie Willers as a competent and loyal Taggart employee, but I thought his manner with Jim Taggart was far too impertinent. It was the sort of “talking back” that would raise no eyebrows today, but would in an earlier age have been seen as inappropriate and out of character for Eddie. Similarly, Francisco’s self-introduction to Rearden was unbefitting in its breeziness. In the novel, it is precisely Francisco’s civilized and refined manner, his baldly evident “authentic respect,” that takes Rearden by surprise and provides the first inkling of the great contradiction that Rearden will have to resolve. The logic of Francisco’s unsmiling and deadly serious opening move in the novel--”the action of naming an issue instead of evading it”--is entirely lost in Francisco’s absurdly jovial and familiar introduction in the movie.

Above all, and somewhat paradoxically, I believe setting the film in a time that is already gone would have made its moral message more apparent. The ordinariness--the sheer familiarity--of setting it essentially in today’s world tends to emphasize merely the prophetic nature of the novel, at the expense of its morality. The concrete events and political conditions in the movie ring too true with today’s world; the viewer might walk away thinking that Atlas Shrugged is simply a criticism of Bush-Obama politics as opposed to a complete philosophical treatise grounding freedom in metaphysical facts. Conveying the essence of Atlas Shrugged in movie form is difficult enough, but it seems insuperable to convince general movie audiences of its universality and timelessness without first severing their complacent hold upon the familiar.

Enough about that. This post is running long, so I’ll just briefly mention a few miscellaneous things that bothered me, refraining from much elaboration.

The Catch Phrase

I don’t know for sure what Ayn Rand intended for emphasis in the famous catch phrase, but I have always imagined it as, “Who is John Galt?” That is, when the phrase “plays” in my head, the emphasis is on the verb “is.” That accentuation makes the most sense to me if the saying is going to convey the idea, “Why ask useless questions?” With that in mind, I was extremely annoyed to hear the verb “is” sometimes eliminated by shortening the phrase with a contraction: “Who’s John Galt?” That was uttered at least twice in the film, and it constitutes a pointless variation. On top of that, even considering that the filmmakers had to pack everything into about an hour and a half, I think they overused the phrase. I didn’t count the occurrences, but it began to feel forced, while in the novel it was cleverly and subtly woven into the story.

The Bracelet

One of my favorite scenes in the novel is the bracelet exchange between Lillian and Dagny, and unfortunately this was completely botched in the movie. If the filmmakers had simply followed the guidance of the dialogue in the book, they would have captured most of its brilliance: the trap Lillian sets for herself (“Why no, it’s not from a hardware store . . . Of course, I’d exchange it for a common diamond bracelet any time.”); the fact that Dagny discovers the significance of the bracelet only at that instant, not ahead of time, as in the movie, which defeats the spontaneity of the moment; the ruthless and uncompromising boldness of Dagny (“If you are not the coward that I think you are, you will exchange it.”); the hush of scandal and shock that fell over the party guests in the vicinity (“‘This is horrible!’ cried some woman.”) instead of the exchange in the movie going unnoticed by bystanders. The movie does everything possible to diffuse, dilute, and trivialize the scene. On top of it all, it ends absurdly by Rearden following Dagny almost meekly away from the confrontation, instead of standing like a Roman centurion by his wife to force himself through the motions of a loving husband--an action that is necessary both for logic, considering Rearden’s psychological stage at this point (which admittedly, movie viewers have no idea about), and for its stark contrast with a confrontation that will happen in Part 2 if it is ever made.

The Sex

This brings me to the sex, which is simply ridiculous in the movie. I’m not sure how one would ever do the novel justice on this score, but the tender, gentle touching between Hank and Dagny, along with the default assumption (we the movie viewers are given no indication otherwise) that this is a casual, any-port-in-a-storm affair that results from the mere convenience of a man and a woman finding each other alone in a dark hallway at Ellis Wyatt’s house, is decidedly not the way to do it. In the movie, there is no fever, no passion, no violence, no self-torture, no surrender, no agony; there is no vulgarity, either hurled by a man as a weapon that tears his own flesh or accepted by a woman, with a shudder of pleasure, as a badge of honor. In the novel, Rearden is in agony on the rack, in chains that he has himself forged; he is at once in a cathedral and a dungeon. In the movie, Rearden has sex.

The Mystery

My final major complaint is that too much is given away in Part 1, which significantly undermines the suspense of the overall story. The disappearances of producers was handled very effectively, but it would have been much, much better if movie viewers were left with no idea what happened to them. The mysterious visitor, whose voice could be heard as he spoke to each producer before he disappeared, gave away too many hints, and then at the end, the existence of Atlantis was revealed directly and explicitly. That is way too early. We are not supposed to find out about that until the beginning of Part 3. (On top of that, the voice-over at the end delivered a vaguely libertarian message, indicating the presence of “very little government” in Atlantis, or something to that effect. I shuddered at that a bit. It is likely that this is an indication of the filmmakers’ superficial understanding of Objectivism.) I cannot understand the rationale of deliberately undermining the story in this manner. If anything, the movie (not to mention the sequels) would have benefited if viewers thought the disappearing producers were actually in peril; it would have stoked curiosity. The giveaways suggest that the filmmakers thought this was their last chance to speak to viewers--not an encouraging attitude for those of us hoping for Part 2 and Part 3.

NOTES

The images are from http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/gallery.

The quotes from the novel are from Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Plume Printing, 1999, orig. 1957).

The Real Meaning of Earth Hour

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:23:00 +0000

Last Saturday, during "Earth Hour," I wrote a brief post about my own celebration of "Human Achievement Hour." (We celebrated it last year, too.) I found an excellent post by Keith Lockitch called "The Real Meaning of Earth Hour" that precisely and eloquently expresses the point.

People don't have a clear view about what [a massive reduction in carbon emissions] would mean in practice. . . Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate advocates are demanding . . .

Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.[1]

NOTES

1. Keith Lockitch, "The Real Meaning of Earth Hour," Capitalism Magazine, 25 Mar 2011, "http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/environment/earth-day/5475-the-real-meaning-of-earth-hour.html".

Yaron Brook at Babson College

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:14:00 +0000

Why does society reject free markets and like the idea that the government will solve our problems? Why, after a century of ever-increasing government regulations and spending, do Americans think the obvious solution is to increase government regulations and spending? Why, when companies in the least regulated industries prosper and those in the most heavily regulated industries struggle and fail, do people blame failures on capitalism and free markets?

Yaron Brook asked—then answered—these questions in an exhilarating speech, “Capitalism without Guilt: The Moral Case for Freedom,” at Babson College last night.

The answer, of course, is morality. As long as people hold morality to mean sacrifice, altruism, and suffering—as long as people regard selfishness to mean what they have absorbed uncritically since childhood: namely, a predatory or hedonistic satisfaction of personal whims—political freedom is impossible. In articulating every man’s right to pursue his own happiness, the Founders of America expressed, as Dr. Brook pointed out, the most profoundly selfish political declaration in history. The essential foundation for capitalism and political liberty is an embrace of reason and rational self-interest.

image from Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

If you ever get a chance to see Yaron Brook speak, you should not miss it. He is one of the greatest living heroes in the fight for liberty.

Human Achievement Hour 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 00:55:00 +0000

While intellectuals sit for an hour in the dark, smug and cozy in their warm houses, to protest the civilization and freedom that made possible every comfort and luxury they depend upon, our family is celebrating Human Achievement Hour with every light and appliance on.

A Tale of Two Radio Stations

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 02:05:00 +0000

Until about a year ago, the Boston area was graced with two major radio stations that played classical music. WCRB was a private, for-profit, commercial station that played classical music twenty-four hours a day. WGBH was a public, government-funded station that was partially dedicated to classical music; it played music for several hours during the day, but posted on the flanks of its classical programming platoons of fifth columnists--which is to say, programs from National Public Radio (NPR).

Then, in December, 2009, WCRB was swallowed up by WGBH, a Jonah to the Leviathan. I never really learned the details. I know that WCRB had changed ownership in 2006 (and had, to my annoyance, moved to facilities with a transmission footprint that did not reliably reach my radio at work), so perhaps the company that owned WCRB no longer found it profitable to continue. There were shocking rumors that the station would "go country." In any case, in order to provide the "public service" of keeping twenty-four-hour classical music on the air in Boston, the government-funded station subsumed it. WCRB, the private station that had been playing classical music since before I was born became WCRB, public radio.

image from NorthEastRadioWatch

Here's the interesting and perhaps surprising part. One might guess from the fact that the old WCRB was privately owned--or merely from the fact that I am a champion of freedom--that I liked it better than the public station, WGBH. But as it happened, that is not the case. I considered WGBH to be superior to WCRB in every conceivable way but one--that one being that it seized part of its funding by force. This exception cannot be shrugged off, of course. On the contrary, the improper use of government force is a far more fundamental issue than any discussion of musical programming; there is utterly no justification for the government to fund any sort of radio programming. (Indeed, I applauded the nearly successful push in Congress to eliminate such funding, which I discuss below.) All I am saying is that in this particular case, rare as it may be for a government to produce anything better than even an incompetent private company, WGBH ate WCRB's lunch, as the saying goes.

My basic problem with the old WCRB was its apparent view of its customers, the listeners. Judging by its narrow selection of music and the content of its self-promotional slogans, the station evidently considered its listeners to be passive and indifferent to the actual music that was played. Evidently, the program directors believed that the average listener not only knewabsolutely nothing about classical music, which is not necessarily a problem, but actually cared nothing for music, period. The outlook was typified by the appalling slogan that the station featured for a while: "Tracks to relax." A soporific male voice would gently intone these words between pieces, as if we had tuned in to hear Barry Manilow. What could be more insulting to a composer or musician than to say his music puts people to sleep? What active listener of music seeks relaxation? Inspiration, joy, intensity, humor, passion, conflict: yes. Lightness and weight, heroism and villainy, elegant simplicity and intricate complexity: yes. Turmoil, solemnity, fury, love, madness, fever, desire: yes. Boredom: no.

Furthermore, considering the vastness of the field of choice--six centuries of great music--WCRB seemed appallingly afraid to venture past a relative handful of familiar standards. They played the same things over and over again, as if they were a Top 40 pop station. If you liked Beethoven, you might have heard a couple of overtures and some of the symphonies, but could not have expected to discover the quartets or other chamber works by listening to WCRB. And since only two of the piano sonatas were ever played on the station, one might have been astonished to find that Beethoven wrote thirty-two of them. Did you wish to hear a Dvorak symphony? Great . . . as long as it was the Ninth. A regular listener of the old WCRB might well think that Sibelius had composed only two pieces: a symphony (curiously labeled No. 2) and Finlandia. The Variations on a Theme by Haydn seemed to be played ten times more than any other of Brahms' works, and though I rather like it, it is arguably the least interesting piece out of dozens that I adore from this rare genius. Surely the station must have done market research in an attempt to understand its customers. Perhaps this sort of "Top 40" handling of a vast repertoire is really what the majority demanded, but I find it hard to believe, and I am curious to know if the station failed for these reasons.

image from WCRB Facebook page

In contrast to the old private WCRB, the new government-funded WCRB is continuing the tradition of its WGBH parent. It does not treat its listeners (I cannot say customers, since this noble classification applies only to voluntary exchanges) as passive seekers of relaxation. The station plays a wide selection of music, provides intelligent and insightful commentary, and features regular live in-studio performances.

The first self-promotional advertising campaign after the WGBH takeover directly addressed the listeners from the old private station. The series of commercials started with the announcer saying, "If you like this . . ." over the strains of an easily recognized popular piece, followed by, ". . . then you might like this," while a slightly more obscure piece, usually by the same composer, was being played. The obvious attempt was to usher old WCRB listeners into programming that might have been largely unfamiliar to them. The station was, in effect, shaking the listener and shouting, "Wake up! Think! You're not in an elevator any more."

I liked those commercials because they treated listeners with respect. Another set of commercials, however, which boasted that the radio station was "now listener supported," revealed the nature of state-run entities, implicitly assuming that listeners could not (or would not) think critically. (You might be wondering why I keep referring to commercials on a "non-commercial" public station. Yes, public stations have commercials--short interjections that promote the station or thank corporate donors, not to mention those dreadfully long periods of fund-raising. But being "commercial free," government-funded broadcasters simply don't call those interjections commercials in the hopes that you won't notice or at least will be too polite to mention it.)

The claim that the station is "now listener supported" is typical of the Orwellian mendacity of socialists. The truth is, of course, the exact opposite. To make an honest claim, the slogan would have to be, "now non-listener supported." It is only in a free market that businessmen are "supported" by their customers and only by their customers. Advertisers of the old WCRB voluntarily paid for air time in order to reach listeners who would potentially and voluntarily do business with them; nobody was forced to listen to or pay for the existence of the station. It is only now that the government is propping up the radio station that both listeners and non-listeners of the station are compelled to pay for it. If you are an American taxpayer, you are paying for the station I listen to . . . whether or not you like WCRB, hate WCRB, or ever heard of WCRB.

image from CPB web site

Amazingly, there might someday be a happy ending to this story. Defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a notion that would have seemed fantastic to me only a short time ago, is not impossible. (The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is the parent company of NPR and a source of finances for local "public" stations, received about $430 million last year.) In February, the House passed a measure to eliminate funding for CPB. Though it was shot down in the Senate last week,[1] the fact that defunding state broadcasting is even on the table is encouraging.[2] Perhaps future attempts will succeed.

If the government funding of WCRB is eventually severed, there are two resulting possibilities, both of which are good and just: the radio station will either survive in the free market or it will fail as a coercive entity. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that a free market would not support a good classical radio station in the Boston area. Indeed, I consider it likely that the presence of government-funded WGBH has effectively blocked worthy free-market competitors all these years. (How can a private station that has to balance its books in order to make a profit compete with a station that can take 10% of its funding by force?) It is also conceivable that it is precisely the existence of WGBH that drove its only major private competitor, WCRB, to differentiate itself by "dumbing down" its treatment of classical music. It is highly probable that the new WCRB, severed of federal funds, would continue to exist or be replaced by something even better.

But let us consider the worst possibility of the free market scenario: that no good classical music stations could survive in the Boston area in competition with rock, pop, and country stations. If this is the case, then so be it. It simply means that I will have to find other forms of listening to the music I like--forms of which, thanks entirely to freedom, there are countless other possibilities: compact discs, iTunes, Internet radio, satellite radio, live performances, etc. Notice that in each of these forms, I am choosing to pay for the music I listen to (just as with private stations I indirectly pay by patronizing sponsors). There is utterly no justification for forcing other people to pay for my music.

If and when the new WGBH/WCRB radio station is cut loose from federal funding, I will happily support it financially, something I have (despite temptation) steadfastly refused to do for the many years that they've been reaching into my pocket without my permission. Such as the phrase "public service" has any meaning at all, I hope to see Congress perform the only truly "public service" in broadcasting that it can--by setting it free.

NOTES

1. "Senate rejects Democratic, Republican spending plans," CBS News, 9 Mar 2011, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20041305-503544.html.

2. The issue of getting the government out of music programming pales in comparison to stripping National Public Radio of state support. The government backing of news and opinion programming is a dangerous threat to freedom of speech.

President Obama and the State University of Baloney

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 04:35:00 +0000

It is instructive to juxtapose two recent news events to consider which is more likely to cause harm.

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama issued the latest revision of his energy policy. He wants the government to inject itself even more than it already does into the energy business; the government, according to Mr. Obama, must "invest" more in "clean" energy by spending massively on research and incentives. (Translating this from Obama-speak to English, it means that the government must divert funds from free, productive enterprises to non-productive programs that are either popular with environmentalists or promised to special interests favored by the administration and lawmakers.)

"This is our generation's Sputnik," Obama trumpeted.[1] The logic is obvious, at least to Keynesian true believers: The solution to the crushing national debt with which Obama and his predecessors have hopelessly buried us (along with our descendants) is . . . to create another space race. The oracles of the Obama brain trust promise that if only we trust the government, we will "become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015." Actually, President Obama could have boasted more impressively that thanks to the marvels of Bush-Obama spending habits, we are quite likely to have 300 million bicycles on the road by 2025.

Meanwhile, at the University of Bologna, a pair of scientists claimed to have concocted a (relatively) practical cold fusion device. Naturally, this was met with skepticism, particularly considering the history of cold fusion claims. (Remember Fleischmann and Pons in 1989.) According to a report, Andrea Rossi and Sergio Focardi "announced that they developed a cold fusion device capable of producing 12,400 W of heat power with an input of just 400 W."[2] Supposedly, they performed a demonstration in front of about fifty people, a fact which taken by itself doesn't really say much, considering that Penn and Teller regularly fascinate thousands with somewhat more beguiling illusions before explaining how the tricks were done.

I have absolutely no way to judge the merits of the scientists' claims. The purpose of my bringing it up is that it serves as a useful reminder of how advances are actually made in the civilized world, and how bogus claims don't live very long in a free market. If there is any promise to this research, there is no shortage of private, profit-seeking individuals to invest in it. If cold fusion research ever succeeds, the investors will profit (fantastically, I would guess); if the research fails, the investors lose their own money, not other people's money. If the scientists produce fraudulent reports of progress in order to bilk investors, they can be prosecuted. Above all, no force is exerted upon anybody--scientists, investors, or people who do not wish to invest.

Observe how in every aspect of this scenario, government intrusions can serve only to destroy or hamper progress.

* If there is a potential profit to be made, no government is needed or wanted to call attention to it. Private individuals or corporations will decide to invest in exactly the proportion they judge to be worthwhile.

* Investors risk their own money, and deserve the rewards or punishments accordingly. The government accomplishes only two things when it "invests": (1) it forces some people to pay for others' mistakes and (2) it robs the earnings from private individuals who either would have spent their money elsewhere or would have invested that enterprise anyway.

* Government involvement in any capacity--encouraging investment in this area, discouraging (or forbidding) investment in this area, or encouraging investments in other areas--forcibly distort the market. The adverb "forcibly" is not an exaggeration or metaphor; it is precise. The only thing a government "brings to the table" is a gun.

* In a market free from government intervention--that is to say, free from force-- any research,including cold fusion research, must soon produce a result. The meaning of "soon" is up to the investors, who must balance the timeframe along with other factors when judging the return on their investment. Only when the government is involved can fraudulent or unprofitable pet projects continue without producing anything.

In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Obama delighted his audience by taking an easy shot at "Big Oil."

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. (Applause.) I don't know if -- I don't know if you've noticed, but they're doing just fine on their own. (Laughter.) So instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's.[1]

This single passage is packed with so many blatant lies and logic problems, I would hope that at least ten percent of the audience would stir uncomfortably at our commander-in-chief's disingenuousness. The notion that oil companies, who have been plundered, hampered, and restricted by the government for over a century, are "on their own" is utterly ridiculous. Tax breaks--which mean that the government seizes less money than it would have otherwise--do not constitute a cost, but only let people keep the money they earned. The fact that tax breaks apply force to favor some companies or industries over others is true, but is obviously a result of the governments' meddling. And insofar as oil companies are subsidized, even if that is true, it is by definition the governments fault; they are the ones who do the subsidizing! (I highly recommend reading Alex Epstein's excellent work in this area at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. See NOTE 3.)

In any case, if the cold fusion claims from the University of Bologna turn out to be false or mistaken, nobody who hasn't invested will pay a penny for it--unless, of course, the research is prolonged by grants from the Italian government. When the president's formula for energy progress--massive state intervention--fails, it will inevitably (and absurdly) be blamed on freedom and "greed," providing the pretext for still more government power grabs.

Which of these is the greater evil?

NOTES

1. "Remarks by the President in State of Union Address," transcript published on White House web site, 25 Jan 2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address.

2. Lisa Zyga, "Italian scientists claim to have demonstrated cold fusion," PhysOrg.com, 20 Jan 2011, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-italian-scientists-cold-fusion-video.html.

3. See, for example, the archives at the Ayn Rand Center, http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/author/aepstein/.

Also: Alex Epstein, "The 6 Myths About Oil," http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/29/myths-oil/.

Let's Pretend

noreply@blogger.com (Stephen Bourque) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:26:00 +0000

Surprise, surprise. The New York Times reported that it is not only politicians at the local and national levels that can drive our cities and our country into bankruptcy. States can go bankrupt, too. And let’s face it: When they do, the federal government will bail them out just as they’ve rushed to prop up every other failure that bureaucrats deemed “too big to fail."

Policymakers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts . . .

'All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor,' said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson & Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton Administration."[1]

All of a sudden? How this—the fact that state governments are spending like there is no tomorrow—could catch anybody by surprise is bewildering to me. But the most remarkable aspect of this article is its uncritical adoption of the view that is evidently held by the politicians that caused the problems: namely, that things are not what they are until they are spoken of.

For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words “state bankruptcy” has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe. . .

It would be difficult to get a bill [addressing state bankruptcy] through Congress, not only because of the constitutional questions and the complexities of bankruptcy law, but also because of fears that even talk of such a law could make the states’ problems worse.[1, emphasis mine.]

So, as long as nobody on Capitol Hill faces his problems—as long as everyone tacitly agrees to “tiptoe” past the mess and avoid talking about it—all is well? This is a glimpse into the nature of the welfare state. Because every policy flies in the face of reality, bureaucrats attempt to craft their own “reality” in the hopes that everyone plays along. (After all, it is absurd to think that “constitutional problems” represent an obstacle for most members of Congress.) The fact that The Times is complicit in this game of pretense is outrageous.

This brings to mind the scene in Atlas Shrugged in which Francisco D’Anconia confronts James Taggart, who is reluctantly shadowing Francisco at his (Taggart’s) wedding reception.

“What in hell do you think you’re saying?” Taggart cried furiously, seeing the tension on the faces around them.

“Be careful, James. If you try to pretend that you don’t understand me, I’m going to make it much clearer.”

“If you think it’s proper to utter such—”

“I think it’s funny. There was a time when men were afraid that somebody would reveal some secret of theirs that was unknown to their fellows. Nowadays, they’re afraid that somebody will name what everybody knows. Have you practical people ever thought that that’s all it would take to blast your whole, big, complex structure, with all your laws and guns—just somebody naming the exact nature of what you’re doing?”[2]

NOTES

1. “Path Is Sought for States to Escape Debt Burdens,” The New York Times, 20 Jan 2011,
“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/economy/21bankruptcy.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=tha2&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1295614874-xYaH18gluchcvAIUS3ZkeQ”.

2. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Signet, 1996, orig. 1957), p. 377.