George Carlin has died at the age of 71 from apparent heart failure. (NYT Obit)
Carlin was a modern-day Socratic gadfly--a real philosopher. Like Socrates, Carlin stood in front of society and pushed them to question the way they lived. His best bits were usually about how we use words and language. He wasn't just a cunning linguist (oh, how he'd love that!); his humor brought out the personal assumptions and social implications of the words we use. He saw the connection between thought, language, and action; and that the attempt to control language is an attempt to control one's thoughts and actions.
This is of course best exemplified in his Seven Words You Can't Say on Television:
Carlin was one of the first stand-up comedians that I remember. His Carnegie hall show, that I think was on HBO in the 80s, was one of the first extended stand-up routines that I saw and it started my love of stand-up. (Along with Bill Cosby and Eddie Murphy) I can still see all the chairs piled up behind him on the stage as Carlin riffed on the behavior of cats and dogs.
His humor was also a biting social criticism--often, as the years went by, at growing distance from my own views--yet still witty and funny. Carlin was a rare a talent that had the ability to piss off just about everyone: he attacked religion, politicians, feminists, and conservatives of all stripes. Carlin had no truck for bullshit of any kind and where he sensed someone trying to get away with something, he attacked them vigorously and thoroughly. Sadly, in his waning years, Carlin got much too bitter and angry; and this detracted from my enjoyment of his more recent work.
Just this Friday, I was watching several of his older bits on YouTube. (This was 'research' for my upcoming talk on "Bullshit".) They were still funny as ever. Thank you George Carlin.
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Monday, June 23, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
The funny side of the elections
P.J. O'Rourke is one of my favorite political writers. His humor cuts through so much bull and often through the laughter one recognizes the truth.
His "Letter to Our European Friends" explains the US elections in a way that has to make everyone from all political stripes laugh out loud.
Here are some gems.
Explaining our two party system:
On the libertarian side, my friend Patrick has done a thoroughly hilarious analysis of the libertarian candidates. They almost make Ron Paul look normal.
His "Letter to Our European Friends" explains the US elections in a way that has to make everyone from all political stripes laugh out loud.
Here are some gems.
Explaining our two party system:
Democrats are in favor of higher taxes to pay for greater spending, while Republicans are in favor of greater spending, for which the taxpayers will pay.On Mitt Romney as a conservative:
But Mitt was governor of Massachusetts. This is like applying to be pope and listing your prior job experience as "Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem."On the Presidents as the Seven Dwarves:
We've got Dopey right now. We had Sleazy before him. Grumpy lost in '04. Sleepy was great in the 1980s, but he's dead.
On the libertarian side, my friend Patrick has done a thoroughly hilarious analysis of the libertarian candidates. They almost make Ron Paul look normal.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
My New Canadian Hero
Courage. Integrity. Principled. Passioned defense of freedom.
This video is the opening statement of Ezra Levant's defense of free speech before the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission. It's a remarkable and inspiring demonstration. There are other clips of the hearing--all of which have Levant never wavering from his courageous stand against government censorship and violations of liberty.
(Hat tips to: Megan McArdle and Timothy Sandefur)
This video is the opening statement of Ezra Levant's defense of free speech before the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission. It's a remarkable and inspiring demonstration. There are other clips of the hearing--all of which have Levant never wavering from his courageous stand against government censorship and violations of liberty.
(Hat tips to: Megan McArdle and Timothy Sandefur)
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Beware the Libertarian Label
Timothy Sandefur has a fantastic post "What will libertarians learn from the Ron Paul fiasco?"
A great point he highlights is that there is deep division in the libertarian movement: "the neo-Confederates at the Mises Institute on one hand, and what James Kirchik calls “the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine” on the other."
Maybe this whole Ron Paul hoopla will get people to think about these differences and where they stand on them. I began to think about them after 9/11 when I saw so many who claimed the label libertarian saying such foreign things about the causes of 9/11 and what our response should be. I also have met libertarians over the years who do not seem to have a deep understanding of or serious commitment to liberty. They are libertarians primarily on the basis of being anti-authority. I call them the let-me-smoke-my-pot libertarians. Yes they want government out of their lives, but not on a consistent principle and so end up supporting statist plans in other areas of politics.
This doesn't mean that there are not some committed, principled libertarians who do understand the importance of individual liberty and the proper role of the government. Most Objectivists get it -- though there are plenty of division there as well. Most of the folks at Cato get it most of the time. Reason Mag on its best days gets it too -- but since Postrel left Reason it's gone way down hill. (Read Postrel take Reason to task for missing the boat on Paul.)
The moral of the story: Beware the label libertarian. It has come to be a meaningless term that doesn't tell you anything useful about the beliefs of an individual.
A great point he highlights is that there is deep division in the libertarian movement: "the neo-Confederates at the Mises Institute on one hand, and what James Kirchik calls “the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine” on the other."
Kirchik is the The New Republic author that recently published an article detailing the often racist and anti-semitic content of newsletters that went out under Paul's name in the 80s and 90s. (Yes, there is some dispute about the authorship of these newsletters, but Paul doesn't deny granting permission to publish them under his name.)Sandefur argues, and I agree, that the neo-confederate/paleo-conservative camp are not really libertarians. Of course, that side would argue that we are the ones who are not libertarians. There are real philosophical differences about the understanding of morality, individuals, the role of the state, and so on. So what to do? Sandefur hopes for a reformation of sorts: "a straightforward confrontation with complicated and challenging issues."
Maybe this whole Ron Paul hoopla will get people to think about these differences and where they stand on them. I began to think about them after 9/11 when I saw so many who claimed the label libertarian saying such foreign things about the causes of 9/11 and what our response should be. I also have met libertarians over the years who do not seem to have a deep understanding of or serious commitment to liberty. They are libertarians primarily on the basis of being anti-authority. I call them the let-me-smoke-my-pot libertarians. Yes they want government out of their lives, but not on a consistent principle and so end up supporting statist plans in other areas of politics.
This doesn't mean that there are not some committed, principled libertarians who do understand the importance of individual liberty and the proper role of the government. Most Objectivists get it -- though there are plenty of division there as well. Most of the folks at Cato get it most of the time. Reason Mag on its best days gets it too -- but since Postrel left Reason it's gone way down hill. (Read Postrel take Reason to task for missing the boat on Paul.)
The moral of the story: Beware the label libertarian. It has come to be a meaningless term that doesn't tell you anything useful about the beliefs of an individual.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Ajami and Ali share their wisdom
I came across two very interesting articles in the New York Times Books section today. Almost all the reviews and essays are related to Islam.
The first is an essay by Fouad Ajami. I've read his essays in Newsweek and usually find him interesting and intelligent. This essay is no different. He writes about his past criticism of Samuel Huntington's well-known (for good reason) article and subsequent book: The Clash of Civilizations. With hindsight, Ajami gives more credit to Huntington's prediction that the end of the cold war would be followed by a much more serious clash between Islam and the West. "Nearly 15 years on, Huntington’s thesis about a civilizational clash seems more compelling to me than the critique I provided at that time."
The second, and much more interesting, is a review by Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Lee Harris' The Suicide of Reason. Ali is the author of Infidel--a book on my to read list. And after this review, her book is bumped to the top of that list.
She praises Harris' book for its treatment of Islamic fanaticism: its utter rejection of reason, its glorification of self-sacrifice, and its “grand mission of conversion.” She takes him to task, however, for his view of the “fanaticism of reason.” This is his view that the West’s reliance on reason blinds the West to the true nature of the Islamic world. Reason leads the West to an assumption of universally shared values, motivations, and goals. But, Harris apparently argues, this is a fatal mistake. The Islamic world does not share the values of the West and assuming they do, leads us to misunderstand their actions and goals and thus fail to respond appropriately.
Ali doesn’t disagree with the essential idea here: that Islam and the West have fundamentally different world-views and values and that we in the West often fail to recognize this. Where she takes issue with Harris is in his view that reliance on reason is the culprit. Harris, she argues, seems to think that reason makes us weak and the reliance on faith and force in the Muslim world makes them strong: “our worship of reason is making us easy prey for a ruthless, unscrupulous and extremely aggressive predator and may be contributing to a slow cultural ‘suicide.’”
Not so, says Ali. Reason is our great strength, not our weakness: “The problem, however, is not too much reason but too little.” Harris fails to see the real problem: the West’s own rejection of reason: religion and romanticism. Both, she claims, are hostile to modernity and the Enlightenment (and thus reason). Romanticism encourages moral relativism and glorifies tribal life over the individual. This undermines reason and individualism in the West and gives succor to our Islamic enemies.
She appears to be drawing a similar distinction to one that David Kelley draws between pre-modern, modern, and post-modern (See his The Party of Modernity). Kelley argues that the pre-modern and post-modern are both opposed to the modern in their rejection (or diminution) of reason. Ali identifies religion as something that the Enlightenment must grow out of and overcome (pre-modern) and that the romanticism is reaction against the Enlightenment and reason (post-modern).
Ali recognizes that what the West needs to defeat Islamic fanaticism is to rediscover and embrace the Enlightenment: it needs reason and individualism.
Whether it’s Rand’s escape from the Soviet Union or Ali’s escape from Muslim tribal life, it is interesting that it takes some one born and raised outside the West to see not just the dangers inherent from where they came but the salvation offered by a culture of reason and individualism.
The first is an essay by Fouad Ajami. I've read his essays in Newsweek and usually find him interesting and intelligent. This essay is no different. He writes about his past criticism of Samuel Huntington's well-known (for good reason) article and subsequent book: The Clash of Civilizations. With hindsight, Ajami gives more credit to Huntington's prediction that the end of the cold war would be followed by a much more serious clash between Islam and the West. "Nearly 15 years on, Huntington’s thesis about a civilizational clash seems more compelling to me than the critique I provided at that time."
The second, and much more interesting, is a review by Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Lee Harris' The Suicide of Reason. Ali is the author of Infidel--a book on my to read list. And after this review, her book is bumped to the top of that list.
She praises Harris' book for its treatment of Islamic fanaticism: its utter rejection of reason, its glorification of self-sacrifice, and its “grand mission of conversion.” She takes him to task, however, for his view of the “fanaticism of reason.” This is his view that the West’s reliance on reason blinds the West to the true nature of the Islamic world. Reason leads the West to an assumption of universally shared values, motivations, and goals. But, Harris apparently argues, this is a fatal mistake. The Islamic world does not share the values of the West and assuming they do, leads us to misunderstand their actions and goals and thus fail to respond appropriately.
Ali doesn’t disagree with the essential idea here: that Islam and the West have fundamentally different world-views and values and that we in the West often fail to recognize this. Where she takes issue with Harris is in his view that reliance on reason is the culprit. Harris, she argues, seems to think that reason makes us weak and the reliance on faith and force in the Muslim world makes them strong: “our worship of reason is making us easy prey for a ruthless, unscrupulous and extremely aggressive predator and may be contributing to a slow cultural ‘suicide.’”
Not so, says Ali. Reason is our great strength, not our weakness: “The problem, however, is not too much reason but too little.” Harris fails to see the real problem: the West’s own rejection of reason: religion and romanticism. Both, she claims, are hostile to modernity and the Enlightenment (and thus reason). Romanticism encourages moral relativism and glorifies tribal life over the individual. This undermines reason and individualism in the West and gives succor to our Islamic enemies.
She appears to be drawing a similar distinction to one that David Kelley draws between pre-modern, modern, and post-modern (See his The Party of Modernity). Kelley argues that the pre-modern and post-modern are both opposed to the modern in their rejection (or diminution) of reason. Ali identifies religion as something that the Enlightenment must grow out of and overcome (pre-modern) and that the romanticism is reaction against the Enlightenment and reason (post-modern).
Ali recognizes that what the West needs to defeat Islamic fanaticism is to rediscover and embrace the Enlightenment: it needs reason and individualism.
Whether it’s Rand’s escape from the Soviet Union or Ali’s escape from Muslim tribal life, it is interesting that it takes some one born and raised outside the West to see not just the dangers inherent from where they came but the salvation offered by a culture of reason and individualism.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Perfection
16-0! Patriots closed out the regular season perfect. Wasn't always pretty, but always exciting. Now the real season starts. Go Pats!
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
More Concerns about Paul
I don't mean to be constantly harping on Paul. There is a lot wrong with the other candidates. I just keep coming back to Paul because 1) my libertarian friends keep tauting him; 2) I had higher expectations before I knew anything about him; and 3) the more comes out the more ridiculous he is.
At some point folks are going to have to realize 1) this guy isn't the pro-liberty guy everything thinks he is and 2) even if he is, he's a loon who's giving libertarians a bad name.
The latest: Paul doesn't accept evolution.
Hat Tip: Timothy Sandefur
At some point folks are going to have to realize 1) this guy isn't the pro-liberty guy everything thinks he is and 2) even if he is, he's a loon who's giving libertarians a bad name.
The latest: Paul doesn't accept evolution.
Hat Tip: Timothy Sandefur
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Much Ado About Nothing: Steroids and HGH
The NY Times has an interesting Op-Ed on the effects of the use of steriods and HGH in baseball. In "More Juice, Less Punch," Jonathan Cole, a sociologists, and Stephen Stigler, a statistician, looked at the stats of players named in the Mitchell Report and found that the players' numbers (ERAs, batting avgs, home runs) do not show any statistically significant increase and in some cases show a decrease.
They do note that steroids and HGH might have aided a player to stay in the bigs and continue to perform longer, but haven't found a way to test that. If this statistical analysis is accurate, it adds more to my growing skepticism about the reasons for prohibiting the use of these technologies. If we have technologies that can prolong the careers of the game's greatest players: why prohibit them? Think of what Koufax could have done if his career wasn't cut short by injury!
Steroids raise serious long-term health risks and so that may be a reason for a private league to prohibit its use. But HGH, to my knowledge, doesn't have as significant long-term health risks. HGH is less studied, but the reported side effects are supposed to be rare (grain of salt warning: this is mostly from Wikipedia). Moreover, both steroids and HGH probably could be used safely under the direction of physicians for short periods of time to help with injury recovery (after all, this is how they are actually used in the medical establishment). And how is this any different than any other, non-prohibited, technologies used to help players recover from injury quicker?
I also think there are some arbitrary distinctions in this debate. Why ban HGH but allow cortisone shots? Big Papi got a cortisone shot near the end of the regularly season that allowed him to overcome a knee injury and perform in the playoffs. How is this any different than a player using HGH under doctor's supervision for overcoming an injury more quickly and effectively? The league bans amphetamines but not caffeine? Why allow Tommy John surgeries? For that matter, why allow weight training or physical therapy? These all help a player perform better for longer.
The argument appears to be some mix of the following:
1) The prohibited technologies are more dangerous and riskier than other technologies
2) The prohibited technologies are much more effective than other technologies
The first is more plausible, though paternalistic. The second is either arbitrary or just plain kooky. Why ban a technology that is more effective? One argument for 2 is the so-called history of the game argument. That is, in order to be able to compare the numbers of players from different eras (Ruth to Bonds), we prevent the use of certain technologies that would enhance the numbers of current players. One of the problems with this argument, however, is that it introduces the arbitrary element. Why HGH but not cortisone? Why not, then, also prevent the use of the much greater athletic training and medical knowledge we have now? Should we be using the technologies of the 20s to protect the history of the game? As this NY Times article shows, the use of HGH and steroids doesn't appear to have effected the numbers, but surely the knowledge athletes have about training and nutrition has effected these numbers to a significant degree. So this argument seems to work better if we ignore the use of HGH and focus on preventing players from using the gym and eating properly.
They do note that steroids and HGH might have aided a player to stay in the bigs and continue to perform longer, but haven't found a way to test that. If this statistical analysis is accurate, it adds more to my growing skepticism about the reasons for prohibiting the use of these technologies. If we have technologies that can prolong the careers of the game's greatest players: why prohibit them? Think of what Koufax could have done if his career wasn't cut short by injury!
Steroids raise serious long-term health risks and so that may be a reason for a private league to prohibit its use. But HGH, to my knowledge, doesn't have as significant long-term health risks. HGH is less studied, but the reported side effects are supposed to be rare (grain of salt warning: this is mostly from Wikipedia). Moreover, both steroids and HGH probably could be used safely under the direction of physicians for short periods of time to help with injury recovery (after all, this is how they are actually used in the medical establishment). And how is this any different than any other, non-prohibited, technologies used to help players recover from injury quicker?
I also think there are some arbitrary distinctions in this debate. Why ban HGH but allow cortisone shots? Big Papi got a cortisone shot near the end of the regularly season that allowed him to overcome a knee injury and perform in the playoffs. How is this any different than a player using HGH under doctor's supervision for overcoming an injury more quickly and effectively? The league bans amphetamines but not caffeine? Why allow Tommy John surgeries? For that matter, why allow weight training or physical therapy? These all help a player perform better for longer.
The argument appears to be some mix of the following:
1) The prohibited technologies are more dangerous and riskier than other technologies
2) The prohibited technologies are much more effective than other technologies
The first is more plausible, though paternalistic. The second is either arbitrary or just plain kooky. Why ban a technology that is more effective? One argument for 2 is the so-called history of the game argument. That is, in order to be able to compare the numbers of players from different eras (Ruth to Bonds), we prevent the use of certain technologies that would enhance the numbers of current players. One of the problems with this argument, however, is that it introduces the arbitrary element. Why HGH but not cortisone? Why not, then, also prevent the use of the much greater athletic training and medical knowledge we have now? Should we be using the technologies of the 20s to protect the history of the game? As this NY Times article shows, the use of HGH and steroids doesn't appear to have effected the numbers, but surely the knowledge athletes have about training and nutrition has effected these numbers to a significant degree. So this argument seems to work better if we ignore the use of HGH and focus on preventing players from using the gym and eating properly.
Friday, December 21, 2007
An Inconvenient Fact
Here's an inconvenient fact for you: world temperatures have not increased this decade. That's right, there has not been any global warming in almost 10 years.This is not predicted by the so-called skeptic-proof global warming theories. And guess what? The so-called consensus doesn't know how to explain this. They don't know if this is temporary or permanent. They don't know how to explain that while the theories say there should be consistently increasing temperatures, the temperatures haven't increased.
What does this mean? I am not sure, but I hope this data can allow for a more open and rational approach to climate change. One not based on intimidation and demanded obedience to a politically based consensus. And please, Al Gore: Go away.
Pat has chimed in.
What does this mean? I am not sure, but I hope this data can allow for a more open and rational approach to climate change. One not based on intimidation and demanded obedience to a politically based consensus. And please, Al Gore: Go away.
Pat has chimed in.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Time: Dictators are cool!
Time Magazine has declared Vladimir Putin as the 2007 Person of the Year. The argument is that Putin has shown great leadership in bringing stability to Russia.
I'd argue by retreating from liberty and rule of law, he's done more long-term to undermine the Russian state and its stability. Truly great leadership would have been to bring stability to Russia without authoritarianism.
Time claims that the the Person of the Year award "is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse". Certainly, one would hope so, given that Stalin (twice!), Hitler, and Ayatollah Khomeini have all been named Person of the Year. (Past Winners)
Nonetheless, I think most people think of this title as an award or honor and despite Time's protests people will continue to think that way. I certainly was surprised to see Putin picked until I read the article and saw the history of the title. I still disagree with the choice of Putin, even by their standards. The runners-up were: Al Gore, JK Rowling, General David Petraeus, and Hu Jintao (President of China). I'd probably go with Investors Business Daily and chose Petraeus. By most accounts, he's doing a tremendous job in Iraq, bringing some order out of the chaos and fighting the enemies of the entire free world. Now that is leadership that will have a profound effect on America and the World.
I'd argue by retreating from liberty and rule of law, he's done more long-term to undermine the Russian state and its stability. Truly great leadership would have been to bring stability to Russia without authoritarianism.
Time claims that the the Person of the Year award "is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse". Certainly, one would hope so, given that Stalin (twice!), Hitler, and Ayatollah Khomeini have all been named Person of the Year. (Past Winners)
Nonetheless, I think most people think of this title as an award or honor and despite Time's protests people will continue to think that way. I certainly was surprised to see Putin picked until I read the article and saw the history of the title. I still disagree with the choice of Putin, even by their standards. The runners-up were: Al Gore, JK Rowling, General David Petraeus, and Hu Jintao (President of China). I'd probably go with Investors Business Daily and chose Petraeus. By most accounts, he's doing a tremendous job in Iraq, bringing some order out of the chaos and fighting the enemies of the entire free world. Now that is leadership that will have a profound effect on America and the World.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Paul: Nazis are ok!
Little Green Footballs is reporting several stories about Ron Paul's ties to Neo-nazis and white supremacists. The first story was about donations from such groups and Paul's refusal to return the donations. Then, after distancing himself from these groups, some in these groups were feeling betrayed and are now claiming closer connections with Paul.
I guess Paul is for liberty as long as you're are white and Christian. That's not my kind of libertarianism.
I guess Paul is for liberty as long as you're are white and Christian. That's not my kind of libertarianism.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Select a Candidate
Minnesota Public Radio has a decent presidential quiz. It asks you a bunch of questions about your views on the main topics of the day and then calculates your match. Unlike most quizzes of this sort, the MPR quiz actually has some variety in most of the answers and isn't just yes/no or favor/oppose (although there are some annoying ones like that).
I matched best, not unsurprisingly, with Giuliani. I was a little surprised by just how closely I matched with Giuliani. I am not quite sure what the score means, but I got a 28 with Giuliani. 23 for McCain. Interestingly enough, I only got 14 for Paul (same as Huckabee). Hillary came in second to last, only in front of Dodd, at a 6.
Hat tip to Virginia.
I matched best, not unsurprisingly, with Giuliani. I was a little surprised by just how closely I matched with Giuliani. I am not quite sure what the score means, but I got a 28 with Giuliani. 23 for McCain. Interestingly enough, I only got 14 for Paul (same as Huckabee). Hillary came in second to last, only in front of Dodd, at a 6.
Hat tip to Virginia.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Isolationism Confusion
Some readers have expressed concern about my referring to Ron Paul as an isolationist. (See my post) To be clear: I did not use this term as a pejorative or as means of shutting down discussion. I used it as a term that best describes his view.
I understand isolationism to be the foreign policy view that a country should isolate itself internationally. That is, isolationism is the view that a country should not engage in alliances, not provide support for allies, not participate in international organizations, and (or) not get involved in foreign conflicts. It is often used to mean neutrality, non-involvement, or non-interventionism. This looks to me like Paul's view; therefore I am not attributing to him a view that misrepresents him.
The first principle of the foreign policy of free country ought to the protection of the individual rights of its citizen. This view necessitates neither the isolationism as described above nor a policy of involvement. Different historical and circumstantial contingencies will require a consideration of how to best implement the principle of protecting individual rights. At times this might call for neutrality or non-involvement; but it might equally require entering into alliances or providing material and financial support to allies. Indeed, it might require attacking a professed and dangerous enemy.
Given the complexity of recognizing and properly appreciating these different contingencies as well as thoughtfully applying the principle of individual rights to these circumstances, it is no surprise that intelligent, honest, and rational individuals can disagree about what specific policy is best for protecting rights. What I find worrisome about Paul's view, as well as many libertarians, is that the answer appears always to be neutrality and non-involvement. What looks like consistency and principled policy is really just concrete-bound obstinacy regardless of the policy's relation to the principle of protecting individual rights.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
I understand isolationism to be the foreign policy view that a country should isolate itself internationally. That is, isolationism is the view that a country should not engage in alliances, not provide support for allies, not participate in international organizations, and (or) not get involved in foreign conflicts. It is often used to mean neutrality, non-involvement, or non-interventionism. This looks to me like Paul's view; therefore I am not attributing to him a view that misrepresents him.
The first principle of the foreign policy of free country ought to the protection of the individual rights of its citizen. This view necessitates neither the isolationism as described above nor a policy of involvement. Different historical and circumstantial contingencies will require a consideration of how to best implement the principle of protecting individual rights. At times this might call for neutrality or non-involvement; but it might equally require entering into alliances or providing material and financial support to allies. Indeed, it might require attacking a professed and dangerous enemy.
Given the complexity of recognizing and properly appreciating these different contingencies as well as thoughtfully applying the principle of individual rights to these circumstances, it is no surprise that intelligent, honest, and rational individuals can disagree about what specific policy is best for protecting rights. What I find worrisome about Paul's view, as well as many libertarians, is that the answer appears always to be neutrality and non-involvement. What looks like consistency and principled policy is really just concrete-bound obstinacy regardless of the policy's relation to the principle of protecting individual rights.
I hope this clears up any confusion.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Who kidnapped Ben Stein?
I used to get a kick out of Ben Stein, he was a funny, nerdy guy who appeared to understand economics and markets. He was a pop culture voice for freedom and economic education.
Now he's claiming that Darwinism is just a form of imperialism that has no proof and gave us the Holocaust.
WHAT?!
There might be intelligent critiques of Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, evolutionary theory, but Stein demonstrates that he knows neither about the theories nor the criticisms.
He should clearly stick to economics and Ferris Bueller movies.
NY Times article about the movie.
Now he's claiming that Darwinism is just a form of imperialism that has no proof and gave us the Holocaust.
WHAT?!
There might be intelligent critiques of Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, evolutionary theory, but Stein demonstrates that he knows neither about the theories nor the criticisms.
He should clearly stick to economics and Ferris Bueller movies.
NY Times article about the movie.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Bidinotto goes after Ron Paul
Robert Bidinotto has his take on Ron Paul and why his foreign policy view "is sufficient to completely disqualify him for any American public office, let alone for the role of commander in chief of the U.S. military."
Bidinotto frames his analysis in a unique and interesting way, comparing non-interventionist libertarians to those who are always making excuses--sociological, environmental, or otherwise--for domestic crime. He argues that at root both views share an attack on American culture and values because these are held to be the causal factors behind the terrorists and the criminal. It is our cultural 'imperialism' that causes the terrorists to attack us and it is our culture that causes the criminal to be a criminal. The analogy is a bit of a stretch, but I think it does provide some food for thought on parallels between libertarians like Paul and Rothbard before him and modern liberals.
(See my post on Ron Paul).
Bidinotto frames his analysis in a unique and interesting way, comparing non-interventionist libertarians to those who are always making excuses--sociological, environmental, or otherwise--for domestic crime. He argues that at root both views share an attack on American culture and values because these are held to be the causal factors behind the terrorists and the criminal. It is our cultural 'imperialism' that causes the terrorists to attack us and it is our culture that causes the criminal to be a criminal. The analogy is a bit of a stretch, but I think it does provide some food for thought on parallels between libertarians like Paul and Rothbard before him and modern liberals.
(See my post on Ron Paul).
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Paul Follow-Up
Several readers have charged me with misunderstanding or misconstruing Paul's position on some or another area, usually citing some op-ed or other piece Paul has written. Now these may be Paul's positions; however, I really only know what is on his campaign website and his statement on the issues posted there. I have not followed Paul's career and writings.
I find it curious, though, that his campaign website doesn't make Paul's best case. Several readers have indicated that Paul is all about free trade, not protectionism; so why doesn't he say this on his campaign website? He focuses there only on international agreements and how they undermine our sovereignty. Why doesn't he say, Social Security is unconstitutional and we should work to replace it. Instead he focuses there on keeping our promises to our seniors.
This may just be campaign rhetoric, but then where is the great principled defender of liberty? He hides his most important liberty views on his official campaign website statement of the issues. How odd.
I find it curious, though, that his campaign website doesn't make Paul's best case. Several readers have indicated that Paul is all about free trade, not protectionism; so why doesn't he say this on his campaign website? He focuses there only on international agreements and how they undermine our sovereignty. Why doesn't he say, Social Security is unconstitutional and we should work to replace it. Instead he focuses there on keeping our promises to our seniors.
This may just be campaign rhetoric, but then where is the great principled defender of liberty? He hides his most important liberty views on his official campaign website statement of the issues. How odd.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Ron Paul: More Robertson than Goldwater
We inaugurated The Rockford Individualist Collective (TRIC) on Saturday, October 27, 2007. Our discussion was on Congressman Ron Paul and whether Objectivist or “Objectivish” folks should support his president candidacy. The informal consensus appeared to be a ‘no.’
I thought I’d share some of my reasons for not supporting Congressman Paul. My read is that Ron Paul is more Pat Robertson than Barry Goldwater.
His campaign website presents 11 issues. I’ll comment on each of the issues below.
Debt and Taxes
I don’t have any serious objections to Paul’s view here. Essentially, he seems to want to limit and control federal spending by sticking to the Constitution and powers expressed granted by that document. He does some overly worried about foreign banks owning Federal debt. This fact, in it of itself, doesn’t bother me. On the contrary, it seems to show a fundamental long-term soundness to the American economy because foreign banks are willing to buy US treasury bonds and the like.
My worry here with Paul is that he appears to be striking an anti-foreigner note. “It’s those pesky foreigners!”
American Independence and Sovereignty
This section raises some red flags. Paul believes that various free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico are threats to our freedoms, in part, because there is “a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico” and “create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system.”
Besides the worrisome and loony conspiracy-theorist elements, this highlights one of Paul’s great weaknesses. He’s against opening up of trade. He worries that foreign companies will take U.S. jobs and that free trade undermines sovereignty. This protectionism alone undermines the claim that Paul is a libertarian.
War and Foreign Policy
Though this is where much of Paul’s growing popularity is coming from, this is where I have the biggest problem with Paul. His isolationism is dangerous and unrealistic. He appears to accept the view, unfortunately peddled by the otherwise great Cato Institute, that if only we would leave the Islamists alone they would not attack us.
No. This is not a case of ignore the bully and hope he leaves us alone. Nor is this a case where the Islamists have legitimate or reasonable gripes against American foreign policy--certainly nothing that remotely justifies taking up arms against Americans. These Islamists are in this fight to destroy us because we are free and secular; because we are not strict Muslims. (See David Kelley's "The Assault on Civilization" They will not quit this fight because we leave Iraq or even stop our important support of Israel.
Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of invading Iraq when we did, it would be foolish and dangerous to leave now. It would quickly become a dangerous Islamist state. Also, we need to be there to attack Iran before it goes nuclear, but that’s another story.
I’ve always differed from the mainstream isolationist view of many libertarians. I believe we need a principled foreign policy that encourages and supports free societies through out the world. This sometimes requires providing military or other support to such societies: like Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. This is justified on the basis of our self-interest in having more strong free societies through out the world. This also means that sometimes we have to destroy regimes that pose significant threats to ourselves and our allies.
Paul’s foreign policy is essentially: buy our goods but then go away and please don’t bomb us.
Life and Liberty
Another major strike against Paul is his anti-abortion stance. He has sponsored bills that would block Federal courts from protecting the reproductive rights of individuals where state laws prevent abortions.
Besides the problem of being anti-abortion, this points to a more general concern with Paul. He apparently thinks that State’s should be left free to violate individual rights. The Federal government on his view should not interfere with state laws that prohibit abortion, homosexuality, or religious freedom.
Related to this issue, Paul apparently doesn’t support the separation of church and state. He also advocates using federal power to prevent homosexual unions and marriage (and where’s the expressed authority for that in the Constitution, Mr. Paul?)
Second Amendment
No problems here.
Social Security
My biggest gripe here is that for a man that claims that he “never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution,” he does not speak out against Social Security. He merely wants to reform it and make it solvent and he’s introduced legislation to that effect.
Border Security and Immigration Reform
His anti-immigration stance is as unacceptable, and as un-libertarian, as his protectionist stance on trade.
Privacy and Personal Liberty
“The biggest threat to your privacy is the government” Hear! Hear! It is comments like this that attract the attention of libertarians and other pro-freedom advocates. Paul is also a strong critic of the Patriot Act. As a whole the Patriot Act is a dangerous threat to our freedoms, and Paul’s voice is important here.
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
Paul is pretty good here. Though he doesn’t mention any legislation he has sponsored on this front.
Health Freedom
My criticism here is similar to my concerns under Social Security. He appears to accept the current system and doesn’t speak out against the FDA. Most disconcerting, he doesn’t mention at all the plans by most of the other presidential candidates that would nationalize health care. He’s at the forefront of making sure we don’t lose our right to take what ever vitamins or supplements we want to take, but he has nothing to say about HillaryCare or Medicare? That seems out of whack to me.
Home Schooling
I don’t have a problem with his view’s on home schooling. The worry here is that while he wants to prevent the Department of Education from regulating home schooling, what about other types of schooling?
Summary:
While Paul talks the talk at times for libertarianism and pro-liberty, I don’t think he walks the walk. He is on the side of anti-liberty forces on immigration, trade, reproductive rights, and religion. He advocates dangerous and irresponsible foreign policy views. He is, at worse, a hypocrite and, at best, inconsistent and superficial when he claims he only supports legislation expressly authorized by the Constitution. Legislation that he sponsored and cites on his own website belies this view. He doesn’t speak out against clearly un-constitutional proposals, such as nationalizing health care. Nor does he speak out against already established, yet not constitutionally authorized, programs and agencies, such as the FDA, Medicare, Social Security, and the Department of Education.
I do not see a principled defense or advocacy of liberty here. I see a man using the ideas of liberty to protect his view of America as a white, Christian country. That is not good for liberty, libertarianism, or America.
Update: I also recommend reading Timothy Sandefur's post Ron Paul: a threat to serious libertarians
Update 2(12/28/O7): Since I originally wrote this post, Paul has updated his website and added more issues. I hope to have an expanded analysis soon.
I thought I’d share some of my reasons for not supporting Congressman Paul. My read is that Ron Paul is more Pat Robertson than Barry Goldwater.
His campaign website presents 11 issues. I’ll comment on each of the issues below.
Debt and Taxes
I don’t have any serious objections to Paul’s view here. Essentially, he seems to want to limit and control federal spending by sticking to the Constitution and powers expressed granted by that document. He does some overly worried about foreign banks owning Federal debt. This fact, in it of itself, doesn’t bother me. On the contrary, it seems to show a fundamental long-term soundness to the American economy because foreign banks are willing to buy US treasury bonds and the like.
My worry here with Paul is that he appears to be striking an anti-foreigner note. “It’s those pesky foreigners!”
American Independence and Sovereignty
This section raises some red flags. Paul believes that various free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico are threats to our freedoms, in part, because there is “a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico” and “create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system.”
Besides the worrisome and loony conspiracy-theorist elements, this highlights one of Paul’s great weaknesses. He’s against opening up of trade. He worries that foreign companies will take U.S. jobs and that free trade undermines sovereignty. This protectionism alone undermines the claim that Paul is a libertarian.
War and Foreign Policy
Though this is where much of Paul’s growing popularity is coming from, this is where I have the biggest problem with Paul. His isolationism is dangerous and unrealistic. He appears to accept the view, unfortunately peddled by the otherwise great Cato Institute, that if only we would leave the Islamists alone they would not attack us.
No. This is not a case of ignore the bully and hope he leaves us alone. Nor is this a case where the Islamists have legitimate or reasonable gripes against American foreign policy--certainly nothing that remotely justifies taking up arms against Americans. These Islamists are in this fight to destroy us because we are free and secular; because we are not strict Muslims. (See David Kelley's "The Assault on Civilization" They will not quit this fight because we leave Iraq or even stop our important support of Israel.
Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of invading Iraq when we did, it would be foolish and dangerous to leave now. It would quickly become a dangerous Islamist state. Also, we need to be there to attack Iran before it goes nuclear, but that’s another story.
I’ve always differed from the mainstream isolationist view of many libertarians. I believe we need a principled foreign policy that encourages and supports free societies through out the world. This sometimes requires providing military or other support to such societies: like Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. This is justified on the basis of our self-interest in having more strong free societies through out the world. This also means that sometimes we have to destroy regimes that pose significant threats to ourselves and our allies.
Paul’s foreign policy is essentially: buy our goods but then go away and please don’t bomb us.
Life and Liberty
Another major strike against Paul is his anti-abortion stance. He has sponsored bills that would block Federal courts from protecting the reproductive rights of individuals where state laws prevent abortions.
Besides the problem of being anti-abortion, this points to a more general concern with Paul. He apparently thinks that State’s should be left free to violate individual rights. The Federal government on his view should not interfere with state laws that prohibit abortion, homosexuality, or religious freedom.
Related to this issue, Paul apparently doesn’t support the separation of church and state. He also advocates using federal power to prevent homosexual unions and marriage (and where’s the expressed authority for that in the Constitution, Mr. Paul?)
Second Amendment
No problems here.
Social Security
My biggest gripe here is that for a man that claims that he “never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution,” he does not speak out against Social Security. He merely wants to reform it and make it solvent and he’s introduced legislation to that effect.
Border Security and Immigration Reform
His anti-immigration stance is as unacceptable, and as un-libertarian, as his protectionist stance on trade.
Privacy and Personal Liberty
“The biggest threat to your privacy is the government” Hear! Hear! It is comments like this that attract the attention of libertarians and other pro-freedom advocates. Paul is also a strong critic of the Patriot Act. As a whole the Patriot Act is a dangerous threat to our freedoms, and Paul’s voice is important here.
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
Paul is pretty good here. Though he doesn’t mention any legislation he has sponsored on this front.
Health Freedom
My criticism here is similar to my concerns under Social Security. He appears to accept the current system and doesn’t speak out against the FDA. Most disconcerting, he doesn’t mention at all the plans by most of the other presidential candidates that would nationalize health care. He’s at the forefront of making sure we don’t lose our right to take what ever vitamins or supplements we want to take, but he has nothing to say about HillaryCare or Medicare? That seems out of whack to me.
Home Schooling
I don’t have a problem with his view’s on home schooling. The worry here is that while he wants to prevent the Department of Education from regulating home schooling, what about other types of schooling?
Summary:
While Paul talks the talk at times for libertarianism and pro-liberty, I don’t think he walks the walk. He is on the side of anti-liberty forces on immigration, trade, reproductive rights, and religion. He advocates dangerous and irresponsible foreign policy views. He is, at worse, a hypocrite and, at best, inconsistent and superficial when he claims he only supports legislation expressly authorized by the Constitution. Legislation that he sponsored and cites on his own website belies this view. He doesn’t speak out against clearly un-constitutional proposals, such as nationalizing health care. Nor does he speak out against already established, yet not constitutionally authorized, programs and agencies, such as the FDA, Medicare, Social Security, and the Department of Education.
I do not see a principled defense or advocacy of liberty here. I see a man using the ideas of liberty to protect his view of America as a white, Christian country. That is not good for liberty, libertarianism, or America.
Update: I also recommend reading Timothy Sandefur's post Ron Paul: a threat to serious libertarians
Update 2(12/28/O7): Since I originally wrote this post, Paul has updated his website and added more issues. I hope to have an expanded analysis soon.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Islamic Fanatic Provides Key Insights
A truly fascinating article by a former member of the British Jihad Network. The author elaborates on why it is that Muslims join terrorist groups and why they attack.
While I count myself a libertarian in political outlook, I generally run more 'interventionist' than most libertarians. Regarding the current war on Islamic terrorism, I have found myself often in sharp disagreement with many libertarians over the causes of the conflict. Most libertarians argue that the primary cause is American foreign policy, indeed many go so far as to blame American foreign policy for 9/11 and other attacks. I disagree. While I am very critical of American foreign policy on many fronts, I do not believe that is the primary cause of Islamic hatred of the West. The cause, I believe, of this hatred and thus the conflict is the radical Islamic view of the West as decadent, materialistic, and secular. I think this article bears this out.
I also direct you to David Kelley's "The Assault on Civilization" for a more elaborate explanation of Islamic hatred of the West.
While I count myself a libertarian in political outlook, I generally run more 'interventionist' than most libertarians. Regarding the current war on Islamic terrorism, I have found myself often in sharp disagreement with many libertarians over the causes of the conflict. Most libertarians argue that the primary cause is American foreign policy, indeed many go so far as to blame American foreign policy for 9/11 and other attacks. I disagree. While I am very critical of American foreign policy on many fronts, I do not believe that is the primary cause of Islamic hatred of the West. The cause, I believe, of this hatred and thus the conflict is the radical Islamic view of the West as decadent, materialistic, and secular. I think this article bears this out.
I also direct you to David Kelley's "The Assault on Civilization" for a more elaborate explanation of Islamic hatred of the West.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Disturbing New from Tufts
I just recently learned, for FIRE's website, about a disturbing incident at Tufts University. A student-run publication, The Primary Source, was disciplined by the Committee on Student Life for the following two pieces that ran in The Primary Source magazine:
A Christmas Carol that lampoons race-based admission: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8041.html
A piece on Islamic Awareness week:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8043.html
Outraged at this lamentable display of injustice and politically correctness, I penned the following email to Tufts President Lawrence Bacow and Barbara Grossman, the chair of the Committee on Student Life.
Though I have given money over the past few years, it hardly amounts to anything substantial, so I don't expect anything more than a form response. I hope that the pressure that FIRE and the ACLU is putting on Tufts will let cooler and more rational heads prevail.
Update [6/15]: I received a nice response from President Bacow. In the email, he wrote the following, promising, comment: "I disagreed strongly with the substance of the Primary Source message, I also came out squarely against censorship of the Primary Source largely for the reasons you have expressed. I have been very consistent in my comments both in response to this issue and the Christmas Carol parody that the appropriate response to offensive speech is more speech, not less."
A Christmas Carol that lampoons race-based admission: http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8041.html
A piece on Islamic Awareness week:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8043.html
Outraged at this lamentable display of injustice and politically correctness, I penned the following email to Tufts President Lawrence Bacow and Barbara Grossman, the chair of the Committee on Student Life.
Dear President Bacow and Professor Grossman,
As a gift-giving Tufts Alum, I was greatly disturbed to hear about the Committee on Student Life's April 30, 2007 decision on The Primary Source. The decision to punish the student run publication for its two satirical pieces is a grave and profound disregard for free speech and intellectual independence.
I am not a conservative and often found myself in disagreement with material published in The Primary Source. Nonetheless, I think it is important that student publications be at liberty to publish any non-libelous material they see fit. When a publication publishes something offensive or disturbing, this allows an object lesson for students to learn about the diversity of viewpoints and beliefs that exist on campus and in the world and to learn tolerance of this diversity. It also allows students to counter viewpoints that they disagree with in a peace manner. This too provides a lesson of how to respond to those we disagree with in a civil society. Rather then always run to courts to complain about harassment, one learns to counter viewpoints with a positive message of one's own. In the case of the Muslim students, they could have used this incident as vehicle to educate the Tufts community about Islamic history and the differences between moderate Muslims and extremists. This kind of intellectual engagement and interaction is what a liberal arts education is all about.
While the Christmas Carol is certainly in bad taste, there is an important difference between satire of policies of the university and a racially motivated attack on other students. The carol picks out no individual student for ridicule or attack nor is it even targeted at black students. It is targeted at the policies of the university. This makes the punishment of the students look to be more of an issue of stifling speech in order to protect the university from criticism.
I am in many ways more deeply concerned about the punishment of The Primary Source for the The Islamic Awareness Week piece. No where in the news reports or releases about this incident does anyone claim that the quotations and events referred to in the piece were factual incorrect or fabricated. It cannot be an issue of harassment or intimidation to publish disturbing yet factually correct reports. I am not surprised that the Muslim students who filed the case against The Primary Source were angered and embarrassed by what was published, but to punish The Primary Source is a form of shooting the messenger. It serves to stifle independence of thought and belief on campus.
If this is the policy of Tufts, then it is no longer the great liberal arts institution that I thought it was. Moreover, I am not comfortable providing monetary support to a school that no longer values individual liberty nor intellectual independence.
Sincerely,
Shawn Klein, Class of 95
Though I have given money over the past few years, it hardly amounts to anything substantial, so I don't expect anything more than a form response. I hope that the pressure that FIRE and the ACLU is putting on Tufts will let cooler and more rational heads prevail.
Update [6/15]: I received a nice response from President Bacow. In the email, he wrote the following, promising, comment: "I disagreed strongly with the substance of the Primary Source message, I also came out squarely against censorship of the Primary Source largely for the reasons you have expressed. I have been very consistent in my comments both in response to this issue and the Christmas Carol parody that the appropriate response to offensive speech is more speech, not less."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
