text:
Home | Forum | About Us | Web Links | Wiki | Fliers | Calendar |
The Objectivism Online Meta-BlogA pro-reason, pro-capitalism Objectivist Meta-BlogPunishment vs. RewardPunishment vs. Reward: Articles about how two major companies treat potential and existing customers produce good examples of the free market promoting good will. First, to get the negative example out of the way, here's how one Visa customer reacted to the company, as an Olympic sponsor, securing the right to be the only credit provider to attendees of the games. (This made it impossible for him to use another card that offered him better terms in Europe, and it leaves cash as the only option for non-customers.) ... If you've never been to such an event it's hard to imagine how huge the venues are, and once you entered a stadium in the morning, you're not allowed to exit and return with your ticket. Which practically means that once you're inside, you can either use Visa or cash, that's it. ...Roee Adler's take-home is this: "If you want people to like you, give them something. If you want people to hate you, take something away from them." Moving to the positive example. we see how cloud storage pioneer Dropbox used small freebies to both educate and expand its customer base: The real magic happens once the user has already installed Dropbox and signed up for an account. In order to better explain the service and provide the user with authentic, personal use cases, the Get Started page includes a list of tasks essential to the Dropbox experience. The tasks include items like "Install Dropbox on other computers you use" and "Share a folder with friends and colleagues" -- fundamental activities which might not be obvious when explained in a video or tour. To incentivize completion of the list, Dropbox offers users an additional 250 MB of storage for finishing the tasks.What a stark contrast: Visa annoys potential and existing customers by making an obstacle of itself, while Dropbox uses a few well-placed inducements to get customers to overcome a learning curve. Each company has competitors. Which will approach will attract more business? -- CAV For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Looming Defeat for "High Speed" Rail?Looming Defeat for "High Speed" Rail?: George Will maintains that Californians have noticed that high-speed rail keeps costing more and more, may remember its original price tag, and might even apply common sense at the ballot box come November. In 2008, Californians passed an initiative authorizing $9.95 billion in bonds to build what they were told would be a $33 billion high-speed rail system. California, constantly lurching from one budget crisis to a worse one, could not nearly afford even that, and soon the price was re-estimated at about $100 billion. Not to worry, said Gov. Jerry Brown -- the real price will be only $68.5 billion. Why? Partly because it will be less than bullet-like, not requiring extra-expensive roadbed.The Obama administration has offered a $3.3 billion subsidy for track construction, but the project is already way over budget and the original funding measure forbids operating subsidies. On top of this: California's voters evidently understand that Washington's $3.3 billion is spending for the purpose of committing Sacramento to much greater spending: Polls show that 59 percent would now reject the project they authorized.Will notes further that Governor Jerry Brown continues to back this rail "plan", which a majority of voters may feel they didn't sign up for, and, for that purpose is actually backing "temporary" income tax hikes on the wealthy and sales taxes for everyone. Will holds that even California voters won't buy this at election time. We'll see. But even if Will proves not to be a mere optimist on that score, too many still imagine that central planning can work, as evidenced by the rail opponent he cites, who nevertheless favors high speed rail "done right". So long as too many voters think that doing high speed rail "right" involves anything other than a private company building and operating it for profit -- and at a financial risk to nobody but themselves -- high speed rail won't get "done right", if it should be done at all. -- CAV For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post "The Result of Reasoned Engineering and Thought""The Result of Reasoned Engineering and Thought": An interesting video summarizing the challenges the Mars lander had to overcome. (I wish the whole project had been left in private hands, under private funding; nonetheless it's an impressive accomplishment of reason and technology.) For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Communist America?Communist America?: When I saw this image on Facebook a few weeks ago, I was utterly aghast. See for yourself: Communism has been attempted in a multitude of countries around the globe. The result has always been shortages, privation, starvation, labor camps, misery, and death. What kind of evasion must be required to think that the results would be any different in America?!? Alas, we see the same kinds of evasions from the mainstream progressives and conservatives in America. They demand more spending on welfare programs, even while deficits balloon. They want to stop the drug trade, heedless of the cost to innocent lives and civil liberties. They want stricter immigration laws, even though that makes criminals of hard-working people seeking to improve their lives. They want more government regulation, even at the cost of strangling business. In essence, they continue to advocate policies that they know have failed in the past — and that they should know will only fail in the future. I love the quip, "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgment." Alas, that doesn't seem to be the way of politics these days. The vast majority of people deeply misunderstand individual rights — or worse, ignore them entirely. Without the guidance offered by those fundamental moral principles, the result can only be one variant of bad judgment after another. (If you were hoping for an optimistic ending to this post… sorry!) For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Liberty on the Rocks Talk in Louisville on MondayLiberty on the Rocks Talk in Louisville on Monday: On Monday evening, I'll be speaking at the Happy Hour of Liberty on the Rocks – Flatirons. The event runs from 6 to 9 pm. It's at Ralphie's Sports Tavern at 585 East South Boulder Road, Louisville, Colorado. Here's what I'll discuss: How to Be Principled about Election PoliticsIf you're local, please join us! For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post 2012 Top Sex Bloggers Nominations Open!2012 Top Sex Bloggers Nominations Open!: by Jason Stotts Nominations for the top sex bloggers of 2012 are now open at Between My Sheets. The nomination process is easy, either go to that page and leave a comment there like "I nominate Jason Stotts of Erosophia (www.JasonStotts.com) for the top 2012 sex bloggers" or some comment to that effect that includes my name, Erosophia's name, and the url here, or you can tweet to @SweetRori with the same info. Each of you can vote once and I would really appreciate the vote and the increased visibility for Erosophia. Last year Erosophia made it into the top 100 sex bloggers in the world at #93 and this year I'd like to make it even higher. Please take a moment and go and vote for me for the awards. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Mistakes Couples Make about Sex: Philosophy in Action Interview with Diana HsiehMistakes Couples Make about Sex: Philosophy in Action Interview with Diana Hsieh: by Jason Stotts Last night I was interviewed on Diana Hsieh's Blog Talk Radio show Philosophy in Action and we talked for about an hour on issues in sexual ethics and four common mistakes that couples make about sex. It was really interesting being interviewed. I've been writing for many years now, I've presented at multiple conferences, I even (briefly) started a podcast for Erosophia, and yet none of that was the same as someone else interviewing me. I'm not sure if it was because I wasn't in charge of the proceedings (since it was Diana's show) or whether the knowledge that it wsa being recorded for posterity, but honestly I felt a little nervous. Not in my beliefs or material, mind you. Rather, just in that I would be able to present my views well in an interview setting and make it interesting. Happily, I think the show went really well and the discussion was lively and interesting. Diana later told me that we had over 90 live listeners! And, so far, the feedback has been very positive. If you want to listen to the interview yourself, check out this link: "Mistakes Couples Make about Sex." I also encourage you to leave feedback here after you listen to the interview, whether positive or negative. While you're on Philosophy in Action, you should check out some of Diana's other episodes. She does good work and I'm sure that there will be something of value to you there. I want to thank Diana for having me on Philosophy in Action and hopefully it won't be the last time. I had a really good time and it might even have been what I needed to restart the Erosophia Podcast. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Regulation of Property Leads to CensorshipRegulation of Property Leads to Censorship: Is there a correlation between the establishment of a welfare state and a trend towards censorship? Do growing restrictions of freedom of speech (e.g., the notion of "hate speech") occur inevitably with the congealing of a welfare state or an increasing regulation and expropriation of property? Must the expropriation of private property (including money) ultimately lead to the expropriation of one's freedom of speech? Can legalized theft of property ultimately lead to the legalized theft of speech? Are statism and censorship distinct, separate phenomena that tend to converge to establish totalitarianism, or are they inherently partners in same means and ends? In short: Is there a crucial, fundamental connection between property rights and freedom of speech? In 1962, novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand observed: The legal hallmark of a dictatorship [is] preventive law—the concept that a man is guilty until he is proved innocent by the permissive rubber stamp of a commissar or a Gauleiter. Or of a commissioner, director, or "czar." No, America does not yet have a dictatorship. Rather, it is governed by myriad satrapies of statist agencies, bureaus, and departments controlling or regulating virtually every realm of human action. Today, virtually every statist law on federal and state books falls into the category of "preventive" law – laws that protect "consumers," laws that protect children, laws that protect investors, laws that protect employees, laws that protect patients. For over a century, as the volume of these laws has swollen to hundreds of thousands of pages of legislation, there have been men of the Left and Right who wish to organize them all under one unified régime: A dictatorship. The McCain-Feingold law (or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) that regulates political speech is evidence that, yes, such expropriation or regulation will lead to the regulation or suppression of speech, and ultimately, to across-the-board censorship. Political views expressed by private individuals or organizations through private means (especially in broadcast media) have been barred and later granted limited sanction in court rulings (e.g., Citizens United vs. the FEC). But such suppression is not only blatantly expressed in law, but it also comes in through the back door, as witness the experience of Diana West and the Washington Examiner "spiking" her column. The editor's refusal to run a column by a nationally syndicated writer for unknown, unstated reasons, is not strictly censorship (for the paper is private property), but it does smack of a degree of political correctness that would sanction overt censorship. The regulation of private property spawned various kinds of mutated offspring. The regulation of political "campaign" speech in which certain entities are prohibited by laws such as the McCain-Feingold law from engaging in "for" or "against" particular candidates or a specific candidate's policies, could be said to be a result of law that regulates advertising. In the beginning of a slide towards censorship, there may be no speech restrictions on regulated property. The regulation may be intended solely to control product pricing, or sales of certain products to various classes of potential buyers (such as alcohol or cigarettes to "minors"), or places of lawful sale (e.g., of beer in Pennsylvania, and of hard liquor in Virginia). Mandatory "speech" is another form of censorship or speech regulation, such as on product labels bearing nutritional or compositional information, or restaurant menus that must include calorie information. Cigarette and tobacco packaging must carry warnings about smoking. Medicinal packaging must contain warnings and advisories about dosages. Because of an outrageous settlement from a lawsuit against McDonald's, coffee and other beverage containers served in fast food restaurants carry warnings on the containers that the contents are hot. This is "reverse censorship" because the omission of information has been deemed by a government authority or a court not in the "public interest." Go to a Wal-Mart and tally up the number of things for sale that carry warning labels. These would include such things as pillows, tools, electrical appliances, toys, and food. While many manufacturers will claim that their warning labels are voluntary for liability reasons, one can be sure that another motive is to preempt government mandatory regulations. Producers of these products have submitted to regulation as a defensive liability tactic and also to protect themselves from frivolous but expensive lawsuits. Such labels and warnings are ubiquitous in our culture. One wonders why warning labels for books and computer screens have not yet been mandated: "Reading this book or computer screen may lead to impaired vision or blindness." In 1997, Mary L. Azcuenaga, head of the Federal Trade Commission, was "sorta" for the freedom of speech in advertising, and "sorta" against it: The Commission has referred to the unfairness doctrine as "the FTC's general law of consumer protection, for which deception is one specific but particularly important application." The concept of unfairness potentially is so expansive that it could include virtually any practice that Commissioners do not like for one reason or another. Because of the potential breadth of unfairness, it is important that the Commission have a well-articulated standard for delineating this authority. Otherwise, the law could result in having the government make choices it thinks are good for consumers, instead of allowing consumers to make decisions for themselves. The Federal Trade Commission, created in 1914, was another child of President Woodrow Wilson, its statist siblings being the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Banking System. Censorship can also take the form of Ad Usum Delphini*, more commonly known as politically correct speech, in which potentially offending terms or phrases are expurgated or substituted with bland or "non-offensive" proxies or euphemisms. The notions of "hate speech" and "hate crime" are two such offspring of the regulation of political "campaign" speech. One's money – or property – may or may not be used to express one's opinion of a political candidate or his policy, depending on utterly arbitrary rules established by congressmen and at the discretion of policing bureaucrats. Such regulation is the natural result of state regulation of private property (from zoning laws to the composition of your home insulation and electrical wiring). If it was deemed "unfair" or "Illegal" to question a candidate's character and known policies during an election campaign in a privately produced and privately broadcast ad – and depending on the tone of the questioning, it could be deemed "hateful" – it was but a short step to criminalizing "sexist" language, racial epithets, or any other speech considered by the authorities, the courts, and "community standards" as demeaning, discriminatory, defamatory, or just plain "hateful." Perhaps the most perilous instance of imposing politically correct speech in its own literature is the purging of FBI training documents of all references to Islam and jihad. Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann – famous for her calling the Obama administration's takeover of General Motors "gangster government" – is also a member of the House Intelligence Committee. She reviewed, under close FBI scrutiny, just what had been done. Creeping Sharia wrote: "This is truly censorship by our government, the government purging itself of documents," Bachmann said. "We are not only seeing documents purged. We are seeing trainers purged and we are seeing the FBI library purged." How can a devout Muslim not be "stereotyped"? How can a goose-stepping Nazi not be stereotyped? But stereotyping is not the chief fear of "Islamic experts." The stereotypical Muslim is just a straw man. Rather, it is the education of FBI personnel about the true, barbaric, totalitarian nature of Islam that Islamists and their dhimmi defenders wish to truncate. The FBI is charged with "fighting terrorism," but now is forbidden to identify the terrorists. The regulation of speech, in our republic, at least in the 19th century, could not have been introduced "cold," that is, without precedents being set in courts, abetted by a co-opted and muckraking press and subtly advanced in incremental stages by a government-dominated education system, both institutions working to inculcate in men's minds the concept of regulated speech as a norm. Principles of property and speech must first be interpreted in a "populist" vein, reinterpreted, suborned, and ultimately discarded. A nation's citizenry must not be spooked or shocked by overt censorship. It must be "conditioned" to accept it in stages. It must be hypnotized, or anesthetized, slowly introduced to friendly gagging so as not to risk untoward opposition. The citizenry must "educated," that is, indoctrinated with cultural relativism, cultural and moral diversity, subjectivism as a rigid "world view," and reduced to submissive, unquestioning, unexceptional individuals who need the tonic of "self-esteem" to become more productive and contributory members of the collective. All this would be in conjunction with a number of Supreme Court and other judicial decisions that would serve to obfuscate the "social" purpose of private property and freedom of speech, and ultimately abolish them. (e.g., Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. on falsely shouting "fire" in a theater, leaving the government to determine what is a "false" alarm.) Observers of these phenomena have attributed them to conspiracies, that is, to "master plans" of conquest conceived and carried out by evil geniuses. This is the easiest and least credible explanation of why statism has grown in the U.S. Certainly there are minds in existence that plot against freedom and freedom of speech. George Soros comes to mind. But such "geniuses" are not true geniuses. Theirs is a feral intelligence that can only detect and exploit the perceived faults and weaknesses of their prey. They can only react, not act. This is also the tactic and game plan of the Muslim Brotherhood in its "civilizational jihad". The agenda of the current administration is copasetic with that of the Muslim Brotherhood, with similarities in means and ends. The Left wishes to impose secular totalitarianism. The Brotherhood and all its organizational offspring in this country wish to impose totalitarian Sharia law, which is more totalitarian than is Communism or Socialism, that is, it prescribes behavior and approved values from head to toe, from morning to night, from diet to sex, from birth to death. Hassidic Jews also live under similar rules, but there is no deadly retaliation against them if they fail to obey such rules, as there is in Islam, nor have Hassidic Jews declared jihad against the Western cultures they live in. Secular totalitarianism wishes to control men's physical existence. Sharia aims to control both his physical and spiritual existence. And there is this crucial difference between Islam and Hassidic Judaism: The members of the latter wish to remain as insular as possible, while obeying secular law. Islam also encourages an insular policy, but its intolerable nature impels it to suborn and conquer the very secular society in which it may exist. Evil, however, is inherently impotent. Why? It derives its alleged strength from its enemy's actual and demonstrable weaknesses. Evil is not self-sustainable. Its basic nature is nihilistic; as a parasite, it does not strive to live, per se, but merely to exist effortlessly for as long as its host is able to survive. If a host perishes from having to sustain a parasite, the parasite will perish with it or seek another host. The teleological means and end of evil is not life, but negation, in other words – death, or non-existence, or existence without cause – which, in stricter terms, means non-existence, because existence without effort or cause is a metaphysical impossibility. The United States has left itself vulnerable to the inroads and the debilitating and corrupting cancers of statism and Islam. One can trace this vulnerability all the way back to John Marshall era of the Supreme Court. Many of Marshall's decisions began a long succession of Court rulings that were concessions to statist power and controls over freedom of speech. Aristotle was a philosophical cofounder of the United States, but in virtually no time the philosophical termites of statism began eating away at that foundation. Upon America's declaration of war against Germany in 1917, the Espionage and Seditions Acts of 1917 and 1918 contained provisions for censoring mail, newspapers, pamphlets and public speaking that directly questioned the war effort or that could be interpreted as materially frustrating or obstructing the war effort. From that era we traversed to the Obama administration and the reign of Cass Sunstein, the "Regulatory Czar," who has announced his resignation from the administration. Among other things, he wished to criminalize politically incorrect speech and thought: WND first reported in 2008 Sunstein's proposal that the government ban "conspiracy theorizing," including by sending agents to infiltrate websites and chat rooms. Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban, is that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. Ostensively, Sunstein is leaving because of new "family obligations" and a chance to oversee a new Harvard Law School program. But it is only fair to speculate that he is leaving because it has been decided that he is a reelection liability. Back at Harvard, however, he will be up to his old tricks. The Washington Post reported: Sunstein will depart by the end of the month, officials said. He is returning to the job he left, a professorship at Harvard Law School. In addition, Sunstein will head a new Harvard program on "behavioral economics and public policy." Scholars who study Obama say that Sunstein had a major influence on Obama's view of government — stressing pragmatism over ideology. One thing the author of the Post got wrong, as did the Obama scholars: Barack Obama is no pragmatist, but is an ideologue down to his golf clubs. Remember that in totalitarian countries there is no private property through which citizens may protest or criticize government policies. All means of communications are owned or dominated by the state. This includes such countries as the former Soviet Union (and now Putin's fascist Russia, where successful businessmen are jailed and their property expropriated, and where journalists risk death for reporting the truth), Red China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, North Korea, and even Venezuela. In Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, the press was nominally private (as was much private property, including banks), but controlled by the parties in power. Their editors dared not contradict the Party line in the least without risking arrest or a state take-over of the paper, or its simple dissolution. American institutions are surrendering to de facto censorship with little or no such threat of force or government retaliation. Freedom of speech is intimately tied to the status of property. If a government can license and tax one's soapbox, prescribe what materials it can be made of, what times and where it may be used and when, and what may be said from it, it is only a matter of time before one is compelled to relinquish ownership of it altogether. *"At the court of the king of France Louis XIV the education of the crown prince (Delphinus) was also pursued by streamlined [i.e., Bowdlerized] versions of classical Latin writers. These versions were written ad usum Delphini, that is, 'for the use of the crown prince,' and they were later adopted as textbooks in French schools." For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Keeping Crime Risks in PerspectiveKeeping Crime Risks in Perspective: Understandably, the horrific murders at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, have put many people around the country on edge. Obviously, we want to do what we reasonably can to protect ourselves and our families from criminal attacks. And we want our government to take seriously its responsibility to protect individual rights, a major aspect of which is protecting people from crime. However, it is counterproductive to obsess about crime or to make decisions based on irrational fears about crime. So let us put the risks of crime in context:
Subscribe to the Journal for People of ReasonNevertheless, even as we recognize the remote possibility that we or a loved one could be a victim of violent crime, we should treat the scant possibility of criminal assault as we treat other scant but awful possibilities, such as car crashes. Life in America is still generally good and generally safe. Let's remember to live it. Related: Image: iStockPhoto For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Iran Calls Yet Again for Annihilation of IsraelIran Calls Yet Again for Annihilation of Israel: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called yet again for the "annihilation of the Zionist regime"—that is, the nation of Israel. What threat is posed by the regime over which this madman presides? As Craig Biddle notes: [T]he Islamist regime in Iran is sponsoring the slaughter of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, funding Hamas and Hezbollah in their efforts to destroy our vital ally Israel, building nuclear bombs to further "Allah's" ends, chanting "Death to America! Death to Israel!" in Friday prayers and political parades, and declaring: "With the destruction of these two evil countries, the world will become free of oppression."Meanwhile, libertarian "thinkers" at the Cato Institute have this to say: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that Hezbollah—the Lebanon-based, Iranian-backed, politico-military terrorist organization–was responsible for the suicide bombing in Bulgaria that killed five Israeli tourists. Amid ongoing U.S. and Israeli threats to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, the bombing raises a critical concern about any potential conflict: a very capable Hezbollah, together with Iran, would likely strike back hard—and not only in the Middle East—drawing the United States into another prolonged and bloody conflict in the Muslim world that it doesn't need.In other words, goes this argument, because genocidal Islamists are so powerful now, Israel and the United States should sit back and let Iran build nuclear bombs undeterred. What will these Islamists do once they have nuclear bombs at their disposal? Best not to "think" about that. Those who do not wish for America to engage in suicidal appeasement should heed the warning of the late great John David Lewis: The power of the Islamic Totalitarians grows every day that we wait. The strategic balance will shift—the Islamic Totalitarians will have the capacity as well as the will to bring about the nuclear Armageddon that they so deeply crave—if Iran acquires nuclear bombs. It is not a kindness to wait, knowing that our response will have to be even more lethal after a mushroom cloud rises over American soil. To wait, in light of that knowledge, is irrational—criminally irrational.Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related:
Image: Wikimedia Commons For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Help Joshua Lipana Fight Cancer—UpdateHelp Joshua Lipana Fight Cancer—Update: A hearty "thank you!" to everyone who has contributed to help Joshua Lipana cover the costs of his cancer treatment. To date we've raised $13,642 (that's $2,000 more than GoFundMe shows because one couple generously made a direct donation of $2,000 to Joshua's PayPal account). But we still have a long way to go to reach our goal of $25,000. Toward inspiring more donations, let me say a few words about Joshua and why helping him is, in fact, helping yourself. Joshua is a warrior for liberty. He has dedicated his life to fighting for reason, egoism, and capitalism. And, in this regard, he is the most promising young man I have ever met. The reason is threefold: his ambitiousness, his intelligence, and his independence. At the age of 18, Joshua emailed me saying, "Are you still looking for a paid blogger for TOS? If you are, I want the job and I'd like to apply. Plus, I'm from South East Asia. So you'll get a hard-worker for a fraction of the cost of an American writer. It's time to outsource, Mr. Biddle." Impressed with that bold email, I asked Joshua for samples of his writing, which he promptly forwarded. I was impressed with those too. So I hired him on a trial basis to do some blogging. But I was in for even more pleasant surprises. In addition to writing a steady stream of good blog posts, Joshua told me that he wanted to help with our social media and marketing efforts. And he had a lot of ideas at the ready. So I hired him to help in these areas as well, and our engagement numbers and website traffic immediately began to grow. And there was more. Joshua proved not only ambitious and full of ideas, but also able to think at a highly abstract level. Talking with him was like talking with a 40-year-old seasoned businessman-intellectual. Of course he didn't possess all the knowledge of an accomplished thinker of that age. But he was able to detect relationships, make integrations, and see implications at a level that few people ever reach. And there was still more. I soon saw the most impressive and promising thing about Joshua: his independence. He was always eager to learn and even more eager to be corrected when wrong. But if I thought he was wrong and he thought he was right about something important, and if I couldn't convince him that he was in error (and sometimes he wasn't), then he would tenaciously stand his ground. This is the essence of Joshua's character. And this endeared him to me. Independence—the commitment to forming one's own judgments based on one's own observations and reasoning—is the single most important characteristic in an intellectual or a businessman or anyone else for that matter. Joshua had proven himself invaluable to TOS. Joshua was now writing blog posts and articles well beyond his years; he was helping increase TOS's reach and traffic; he was arguing with me via Skype practically every day about something or other; he had been promoted to Assistant Editor of TOS Blog; he was soaring. And then he was diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately, the treatment regimen Joshua's doctors have prescribed appears to be killing the cancer. After four rounds of chemo, the large tumor in his left lung has shrunk to less than half its original size. (The doctors recently preformed a bone marrow biopsy, but the results of that are not yet in.) Unfortunately, the treatment is extremely expensive—the bills exceed $30,000 and continue to mount—and Joshua has no insurance. Our goal in this fundraiser is to help defray the costs by raising $25,000, and we're just over half way there. Joshua needs our help. And to help this young man is to help ourselves. If the treatment works and Joshua is able to get back to work, he will be fighting for reason, egoism, and capitalism—and doing so very effectively—for many years to come. Let's see to it that he's not saddled with hospital bills when he's ready to get back in the saddle. If you haven't yet donated, please make a donation today. If you have donated, please consider making an additional donation. And, in any event, please share this post with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. Every dollar counts. Thank you, Craig Biddle P.S. If you'd like to donate directly to Joshua's PayPal account, you can do so by sending money to joshualipana (atsign) yahoo (dot) com. If you'd prefer to mail a check, please make it out to "The Objective Standard," write "Donation for Joshua" on the memo line, and mail the check to: The Objective Standard, P.O. Box 5274, Glen Allen, VA 23058. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post "Moderate" Islam"Moderate" Islam: I've never been a fan of the term "moderate" to describe religious adherents, I think it's much better to categorize them as consistent or inconsistent. Currently, Islam is more of an existential threat to rational people because its practitioners are more consistent and take religion's importance more seriously than do Christians and others. An article at PJM by Andrew McCarthy does a good job of showing how ridiculous it is to give Islamists a pass for being moderates. (a) Not all Islamic supremacists (or "Islamists") are violent, but the goal of all Islamic supremacists is the same: to coerce the acceptance of sharia. The methods of pursuing that goal vary: sometimes terrorism is used, sometimes non-violent avenues are exploited — meaning, Islamic supremacists co-opt legal processes, the media, educational institutions, and/or government agencies. But regardless of what methods an Islamic supremacist uses, his goal never changes: He aims to implement sharia. In Islamic supremacist ideology, sharia is regarded as the mandatory, non-negotiable foundation that must be laid before a society can be Islamized. Sharia is not "moderate"; therefore, you are not a "moderate" if you want it, no matter what method you use to implement it. For example, if you are an Islamic supremacist and you want to repeal the First Amendment in order to prohibit speech that casts Islam in a negative light, you are not a "moderate" — even if you wouldn't blow up buildings to press your point. (b) Islamic supremacism is not a fringe interpretation of Islam. It is probably still the minority interpretation in North America. Nevertheless, it is the predominant interpretation of Islam in the Middle East. Poll after poll shows us that upwards of two-thirds of Muslims in countries like Egypt and Pakistan want their governments to adopt and strictly enforce sharia. This is why the Islamic supremacist parties in the "Arab Spring" countries are currently enjoying such success in electionsHe then goes on to show how we whitewash the threat of Islam, even denying the common underlying motivation that these killers have: The Obama administration and the Republican establishment would have us live a lie — a lie that endangers our liberties and our security. The lie is this: There is a difference between mainstream Islamic ideology and what they call "violent extremism." The vogue term "violent extremism" is chosen very deliberately. To be sure, we've always bent over backwards to be politically correct. Until Obama came to power, we used to use terms like "violent jihadism" or "Islamic extremism" in order to make sure everyone knew that we were not condemning all of Islam, that we were distinguishing Muslim terrorists from other Muslims. (In a more sensible time, we did not say "German Nazis" — we said "Germans" or "Nazis" and put the burden on non-Nazi Germans, rather than on ourselves, to separate themselves from the aggressors.) But now, the Obama administration and the Republican establishment prefer to say "violent extremism" because this term has no hint of Islam.Be sure to read the whole thing. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Celebrate the CinemaCelebrate the Cinema: In light of depressed movie attendance due partly to the recent murders at an Aurora movie theater, we should remember the profound joy and inspiration good movies can offer. TOS has reviewed a number of films: The Avengers, Act of Valor, The Help, Atlas Shrugged: Part I, and The King's Speech. The print journal has featured the articles, "Atlas Shrugged's Long Journey to the Silver Screen" and "An Interview with Atlas Shrugged Movie Producer Harmon Kaslow." Finally, TOS blog has published posts about The Dark Knight Rises, Marry Poppins, Hugo, and The Grey. Remember that movie theaters remain very safe places to experience meaningful art, see inspiring heroes, and celebrate our values. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Image: iStockPhoto For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Haste Makes WasteHaste Makes Waste: Quick! Is procrastination a bad thing? Maybe you should take some time before you answer that question, as Frank Partnoy, author of Wait: The Art and Science of Delay, argues in an interview with Smithsonian.com. Noting that the Greeks and Romans valued deliberation, Partnoy sees decision-making as a two-step process, which he illustrates with an amusing vignette from his childhood: My mom would ask me to make my bed before going to school. I would say, no, because I didn't see the point of making my bed if I was just going to sleep in it again that night. She would say, well, we have guests coming over at 6 o'clock, and they might come upstairs and look at your room. I said, I would make my bed when we know they are here. I want to see a car in the driveway. I want to hear a knock on the door. I know it will take me about one minute to make my bed so at 5:59, if they are here, I will make my bed.By waiting to make up his mind, he could use his time for more urgent things and, as he later confirmed from his experience and research, he could also make a better choice. He further illustrates the value of letting things simmer with both a negative example and several positive ones. The executives [at Lehman Brothers] took this class [which, a la Malcolm Gladwell's Blink], extolled quick decisions] and then hurriedly marched back to their headquarters and proceeded to make the worst snap decisions in the history of financial markets. I wanted to explore what was wrong with that lesson and to create something that would be the course that Wall Street should have taken and hopefully will take.Partnoy shifts from the market to the prowl to provide an example of a different tack: The international dating service It's Just Lunch advocates that clients not look at photos, because photos lead to snap reactions that just take milliseconds. It asks that they consciously not make judgments about a person when they first meet them. Instead, they tell clients to go to lunch, wait until the last possible moment, and then at the end of lunch just answer one question: Would I like to go out on a second date with this person? In the same way it frees up time for a tennis player to wait a few extra milliseconds, someone on a date will make a better decision if they free up extra minutes to observe and process information. [bold added]Partnoy presents us with the following rule of thumb as a means of improving descision-making: Determine now long one really has to make a decision, and use as much of that time as one can. I don't think that one must always use all of that time, but Partnoy makes an worthwhile point about some kinds of procrastination actually being good, -- CAV For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post 9 Lessons Learned from Using Reddit9 Lessons Learned from Using Reddit: Jim Woods gave me the permission to use this referenced blog post (Nine Lessons Learned from Using Reddit) as a guest post for EGO on Blogspot.
If you try this experiment, please share your own lessons learned. Jim Woods blogs about politics at Selfish Citizenship (selfishcitizenship.wordpress.com). For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Inspirational PhilosophyInspirational Philosophy: by Jason Stotts I've long had a problem with atheists; or, at least with some atheists. And the problem is not that they don't believe in the irrationality that is religion, because I don't believe in that nonsense either. No, the problem is that so many atheists spend countless hours arguing against the irrationality of others in an attempt to get them to move beyond their irrational beliefs. Why is that a problem? Atheism isn't a belief, it's the lack of a belief. People do no have a belief in atheism; rather, they lack a belief in a particular kind of nonsense. But people cannot hold negatives as beliefs. A lack of belief in something important creates a cognitive vacuum that will be filled ("Shattered Illusions"). This is why some people go from religion, to atheism, and back. They never answered the real question and that void had to be filled, so they filled it the only way they knew. If you focus simply on destroying your opponent's arguments, even if you win, then what? You need to give people something positive to believe in. A vacuum will be filled by something. I have the same problem with how some people handle the "pro-choice, anti-choice" debate about abortion. Some people focus only on the negatives of the debate: they deny the religious arguments (on which all arguments against abortion are based), they deny the government's right to control our lives, they argue against a woman being forced to carry a child to term she has no desire to keep, etc. But what they don't do is frame the argument positively and talk about how abortion can be a real value in a woman's life. They don't make the positive argument that a woman's long-term happiness can sometimes be best served by having an abortion. By framing the arguments completely in the negative, they give the moral high-ground to the religion and save for themselves only that it might be "practical." But by ceding the moral high-ground, they are doomed to ultimately lose the debate. If we don't take a positive tack, if we don't take the moral high-ground and argue on moral terms, if we merely attack and never build, then we lose. In order to win, to truly win, an argument or a culture, you must present positive reasons why your course of action is the better one, how it is the moral one, and give people something to believe in and to fight for. In order to win the world, you must give people a morality worth living for: you must help them find meaning. I've long held these thoughts and problems with the way people were arguing, but I had never connected the various issues on which we were forced to fight defensively (religion, abortion, oil, global warming, ad nauseum) as all suffering from the same problem: we couldn't win until we reframed the arguments and stopped fighting to only tear down and never build up. I preamble so much to set the stage for what I think is one of the best ideas that I've seen recently, Alex Epstein's "The Power of Aspirational Activism," which I'm going to quote selectively below. The Power of Aspirational Advocacy Alex does a great job of capturing the essence of the problem: "When we offer an ideal, we can set the terms of the debate." And when we don't, we can't and we are forced to fight on the ground our enemies have picked for us. When we inspire our audience by showing them how to make their lives better, we give them a reason to act and knowledge of why they are acting. This is important in any debate we might wish to win, in any arena in which real values are threatened by false values or where human life is being attacked for the sake of non-humans (whether mythical, imaginary, animal, whatever). We can't win by being on the defensive. We can't win by fighting a battle that was stacked against us at the beginning. We can't win by merely destroying: we must create. We must show the value of a life lived well and the value doing so. If we want to win the world, then we have to inspire people to our moral ideal and show them why our way is the only way. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Seeing the UnseenSeeing the Unseen: The loss of production that results from the increased taxes associated with Obamacare will be very real but largely unseen. Here's one story in which it's made explicit:An Indiana-based medical equipment manufacturer says it's scrapping plans to open five new plants in the coming years because of a looming tax tied to President Obama's health care overhaul law. Cook Medical claims the tax on medical devices, set to take effect next year, will cost the company roughly $20 million a year, cutting into money that would otherwise go toward expanding into new facilities over the next five years. "This is the equivalent of about a plant a year that we're not going to be able to build," a company spokesman told FoxNews.com. He said the original plan was to build factories in "hard-pressed" Midwestern communities, each employing up to 300 people. But those factories cost roughly the same amount as the projected cost of the new tax. "In reality, we're not looking at the U.S. to build factories anymore as long as this tax is in place. We can't, to be competitive," he said. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Department of Justice Sputters on CensorshipDepartment of Justice Sputters on Censorship: I emailed this letter to Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, at the Department of Justice: 27 July 2012 The letter is self-explanatory and contains all the information one would need to grasp the context that Perez attempted to evade and switch. I sent a copy of it to Representative Trent Franks, as well. There has been no response from Perez, and none is expected, although it is likely that my blog articles, here and elsewhere, will come under scrutiny. But I take that scrutiny for granted, because the federal government is already monitoring blog sites for "national security reasons." The threat contained in Perez's waffling responses extends of course to any kind of speech, particularly speech the government deems "hate speech" or "seditious speech" or "revolutionary speech" directed against its growing powers to regulate, stifle, gag, and destroy. If the Department of Justice criminalizes speech "against religion" (specifically Islam) or imposes any kind of "anti-blasphemy" law, that in itself would be anti-Constitutional, but would, of course, open the door to prohibitions against any kind of speech deemed "dangerous" or "harmful" or "defamatory." It is clear from the video that Perez did not care for Rep. Frank's context, and wished to switch the focus from an admission of totalitarian ambition to one that would rationalize totalitarianism. Perez is one of those political creatures whose careers have been solely in government "service." It would not be fair to claim that he knows nothing about the First Amendment of the Constitution. Creatures like him always know what absolutes they are dodging. It was a "hard" question to answer, Franks allegedly "threatened" Perez, and Perez was obviously in need of rescue. Some member of the committee came to his rescue by interrupting Franks on some procedural matter. The video ends there, and we don't know how the questioning ended. Perez's nomination for the post of Assistant Attorney General was endorsed or recommended to the Senate Judiciary Committee by literal menagerie of collectivist groups and statist politicians. And there is this revealing "credit" in his "vitae": "He also served as Special Counsel to the late Senator Edward Kennedy, and was Senator Kennedy's principal adviser on civil rights, criminal justice and constitutional issues." Kennedy also endorsed his nomination for the position. That speaks for itself, and is nearly as much an indictment of him as his wanting to leave the door open to censorship. Instances of Perez's friendliness towards Islam and his willingness to criminalize any speech that smacks of "religious intolerance" (the term preferred by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and Hillary Clinton) are numerous. In June of 2012, The New English Review, for example, offered these tidbits about Perez's inclinations: On October 7, 2010, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Thomas E. Perez, paid a visit to the US Attorney Nashville office and met with local Muslim groups including members of the board of the ICM. Perez told the group that included the Imams the both the ICM and Nashville mosques [about the controversial Murfreesboro mega mosque} that "his office has their back if it turns out that opponents [of the mosque] aren't as interested in zoning esoteric as they are in sidelining the practice of Islam in Murfreesboro." And: Later in December 2011, Secretary of State Clinton would convene an international plenary session with OIC members and other foreign representatives at the State Department. The so-called Istanbul Process conference was directed at developing best practices for combating religious intolerance, a code word for Shariah blasphemy codes adopted by the Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez of the USDOJ Civil Rights Division spoke about development of best practices to comply with the UN religious intolerance resolution. Call the Assistant Attorney General an infidel "Activist for Allah." Perez can pontificate on "human rights" with the best of them. In December 2011 he addressed Clinton's State Department on the importance of protecting "religious freedom," in conjunction with the OIC conference chaired by Hillary in Washington that month. The United Nations Human Rights Council echoed the Universal Declaration in resolution 16/18, which is the basis for this conference. As important as it is to assert such principles, however, it is equally or even more important to ensure that such principles are put into practice. What is Resolution 16/18? Forbes Magazine published a post-OIC conference article by Abigail R. Esman. She isn't quite sure that it's such a bad thing. However, she begins: While you were out scavenging the Wal-Mart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany and Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as "discriminatory" or which involves the "defamation of religion" – specifically that which can be viewed as "incitement to imminent violence"…. Resolution 16/18 has undergone many revisions over the years in attempts to create ambiguous enough a language but still seem pseudo-specific enough to lock especially the United States into a commitment to "tweak" the First Amendment to suit Islamic notions of "blasphemy," "defamation," and "intolerance." This is in the notable tradition of Thomas Perez, to switch the context and establish the terms of "legal" censorship. Esman writes: The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we've learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some OIC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called "Danish cartoons," the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on. Books, novels, cartoons, and literature of all kinds could all be charged with "incitement to imminent violence." Prove that they aren't inciting anything. For Islam and Muslims, there is always a handy mob of demonstrators on call ready to claim "offense" and "defamation" and to carry signs that read, "To Hell with Freedom of Speech." They'll always be hovering in the background, prepared to initiate violence just to back up or make credible some attorney's charge that the violence is "imminent." This fact has been demonstrated countless times over the last few decades. Dhimmified politicians and public figures who endorse restrictions on speech against Islam out of fear of "inciting" such violence are merely cowards. Figures such as Perez do not fear such violence; to judge by Perez's career and the careers of his ilk in the DHS and FBI, they take pleasure in suppressing speech for the sake of suppressing it. That would go far in explaining Perez's behavior when he chose not to answer Representative Franks' s question. He wished to change the subject and present a rationalized, "legalized" option of "entertaining or advancing" censorship. For the reader's edification, here is a partial list of the organizations that endorsed Perez's nomination: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights: Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, ADA Watch, Alliance for Justice, American Association of University Women (AAUW), American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), Americans for Democratic Action, Asian American Justice Center, Bazelon Center, Feminist Majority, Human Rights Campaign, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, National Abortion Federatino, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Coalition for Disability Rights (NCDR), National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of La Raza (NCLR), National Education Association, National Fair Housing Alliance, National Health Law Program, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law Center, People for the American Way, The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law As you can see, these are the organizations that are united in an alliance against the individual, against individual rights, and against reason, and all believe that the Constitution can be "tweaked" to sanction their collectivist "rights" and "entitlements." In Perez's view, individuals do not have "civil rights." One would not otherwise waste time on detailing the career of a political wonk such as Perez, except that his contemptible but signature performance before the Subcommittee on the Constitution revealed the insouciant attitude the Department of Justice, under the aegis of a Marxist, Attorney General Eric Holder, has towards the Constitution and individual rights. In Perez's warped universe, there are only collectivized rights. Remember that he was nominated by President Obama. That also speaks for itself. I encourage readers to send their own letters of protest to Thomas Perez (to [email protected] – there is no direct email address for him), and a letter of support to Representative Trent Franks (at http://www.franks.house.gov/contacts/new – you will need to use his District's Arizona Zip code, 85308, for a letter to be accepted, but you can use your own address and contact information). It is important that we let all wannabe totalitarians and career "humanitarians" such as Perez know that the American people are on to him and his "context" games. It is also important that we let Congressmen such as Trent Franks know that Americans are behind him. It is crucial that we stand up for freedom of speech. Without that freedom, we cannot protect any of our other rights. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Ian Fleming's Beautiful Plan to Defeat the NazisIan Fleming's Beautiful Plan to Defeat the Nazis: Before writing a series of books on the exploits of British spy James Bond (aka 007), Ian Fleming served in Britain's navy during World War II. As part of his job as lieutenant-commander in naval Intelligence, Fleming developed various plans to foil the Nazis in their aspirations to take over and enslave Europe. Here we see early glimpses of Fleming's novel mind at work. Consider, for example, the following plan, known as "Operation Ruthless," that Sinclair McKay recounts in a forthcoming book titled The Secret Lives of Codebreakers: [This plan] involved the use of "an air-worthy German bomber" to be obtained from the Air Ministry—a "tough crew of five, including a pilot, WT operator, and word-perfect German speaker. Dress them in German Air Force uniforms, add blood and bandages to suit." What was so valuable about a rescue boat? The hope was that there would be an Enigma machine onboard, which the Nazis used for communication, and that with this in hand, some of Britain's top minds could decipher the messages sent to and from German High Command. Not only did Fleming come up with this idea; he also, remarkably, volunteered for the mission. Unfortunately, reports McKay, this plan was never put into practice, because weather conditions and other circumstances did not permit it.(McKay tells us that, on hearing the plan would not be enacted, Alan Turing and Peter Twinn, who were working nonstop on breaking into Enigma via the creation of "bombe" machines that would lead to our modern computers, felt like "undertakers cheated of a nice corpse.") But Fleming developed many other plans, some as ingenious as this, and several were implemented toward the victory of Britain and the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany. (For a recounting of some of Fleming's other plans, see Operation Mincemeat: How a Dead Man and a Bizarre Plan Fooled the Nazis and Assured an Allied Victory, which I reviewed in the Summer 2011 issue of TOS.) Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Image: Wikipedia. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Andy Kessler Takes on Job-Destroying MandatesAndy Kessler Takes on Job-Destroying Mandates: In my interview with Andy Kessler (TOS Summer 2011), Kessler said, "There is always room for new creators to make the world more productive. Don't buy the argument that technology will lead to massive unemployment and an underclass; just the opposite happens every cycle." Recently, in The Wall Street Journal, Kessler elaborated on this point. He observed that in doing something in the marketplace better, more efficiently, or more productively, entrepreneurs may initially cause some people to be unemployed, but ultimately they create many more jobs or wealth than previously existed. Quoting from the article: Since 1986, Staples has opened 2,000 stores, eliminating the jobs of distributors and brokers who charged nasty markups for paper and office supplies. But it enabled hundreds of thousands of small (and not so small) businesses to stock themselves cheaply and conveniently and expand their operations.Kessler is right that in paying attention to the seen layoffs, and ignoring the unseen increase in productivity or wealth, economically illiterate policymakers have punished innovators for innovating, encouraged businesses to produce things that consumers don't want to buy, and (via a host of regulations) locked in the status quo. Kessler is also right that the solution is for the government to, as he puts it, get out of the way. Every government-mandated low-flow toilet, phosphorous-free dishwasher detergent, CFL light bulb, and carbon-emission regulation is another obstacle on the way to a productive, job-creating economy that produces things consumers really want.It's hard for people to argue with any of this; after all, if consumers did want something the government would not have to mandate it. But of course that won't stop leftists (or unprincipled "rightists") from arguing with it, and it won't stop policy-makers from enacting ever more mandates in the future. What will? While educating people about economics may help, such madness will end only when Americans—and their elected officials—come to recognize each individual's right to property and the pursuit of his own happiness as sacrosanct. The ultimate solution, then, is to educate Americans about the source and nature of rights. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Wên T'ien-hsiang, on BooksWên T'ien-hsiang, on Books: Of his time as a captive around the year 1280, Chinese scholar, Wên T'ien-hsiang, wrote about books: "Alas! the fates were against me; I was without resource. Bound with fetters, hurried away toward the north, death would have been sweet indeed; but that boon was refused. My dungeon is lighted by the will-o'-the-wisp alone: no breath of spring cheers the murky solitude in which I dwell. The ox and the barb herd together in one stall: the rooster and the phoenix feed together from one dish. Exposed to mist and dew, I had many times thought to die; and yet, through the seasons of two revolving years, disease hovered around me in vain. The dark, unhealthy soil to me became Paradise itself. For there was that within me which misfortune could not steal away. And so I remained firm, gazing at the white clouds floating over my head, and bearing in my heart a sorrow boundless as the sky. The sun of those dead heroes has long since set, but their record is before me still. And, while the wind whistles under the eaves, I open my books and read; and lo! in their presence my heart glows with a borrowed fire." For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Mayor of Boston Versus Individual RightsMayor of Boston Versus Individual Rights: I support gay marriage wholeheartedly, and I've long been appalled by Chick-Fil-A's support for theocracy. However, I'm just as appalled by the attempt by the Mayor of Boston to exclude Chick-Fil-A from Boston. It is a contemptible violation of rights — including of the proper separation of church and state. The letter from the mayor reads: To Mr. Cathy:Such would be a fabulous letter from a private person, speaking his own personal opinions. From the mayor, however, that letter implies a threat of force, namely that of excluding Chick-Fil-A from Boston. That's terribly wrong. At this point, I strongly recommend that people boycott Chick-Fil-A. I discussed that in the 12 February 2012 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, in fact. Here's my 15-minute answer to the question, "Should people boycott Chick-Fil-A for its hostility to gays?" You can also download the MP3 Segment. Oh, and see this post from Eugene Volokh: No Building Permits for Opponent of Same-Sex Marriage. As Eugene explains, it's a First Amendment violation, plain and simple: But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor's speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker's past speech.Go read the whole thing. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Civilian Responses to Active AttackersCivilian Responses to Active Attackers: If you ever find yourself in a mass-shooting incident, how can you safely respond? Our friend Ari Armstrong discusses this with his father Linn Armstrong (a certified firearms instructor here in Colorado) on what unarmed — and armed — civilians can do. For instance, unarmed civilians could throw their movie theater drinks and any available objects en masse at a shooter, thus disorienting him. Here's the full blog post by Ari and the related video, "Civilian Responses to Active Attackers": FWIW, my group practices at two of the big trauma hospitals in Denver that received casualties from the Colorado shooting, The Medical Center of Aurora (TMCA) and Swedish Medical Center. I was off-duty that night, but when I came in early that morning I talked to one of the ER doctors at TMCA who helped treated these patients. He and his colleagues were worn out after a long and busy night, but they did a terrific job under enormous pressure. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Persuade SomeonePersuade Someone: Two blog posts have me thinking about the importance, in cultural activism, of reaching a wide audience. The first post, by a technology blogger, makes a great point, although I don't care for his opening example. (Dictatorial rule systematically usurps the reason of those subjected to it, for starters.) Nobody ever changed anything by remaining quiet, idly standing by, or remaining part of the faceless, voiceless masses. If you ever want to effect change, in your work, in your life, you must learn to persuade others. [bold in original]These others are individuals, and change happens one mind at a time. But even the most persuasive people don't persuade everyone every time, no matter how right or just their cause. One reason for this is that some people simply are not bright enough or do not know enough to be reachable. Another is that some people are evasive (i.e., simply not open to reason). I found an almost perfect example of evasion the other day, when reading a news story about the fallout from the Freeh Report. The Freeh Report had been commissioned by Penn State in order to determine how serial sexual predator Jerry Sandusky had been able to operate there for well over a decade after officials, including Coach Joe Paterno, had been made aware of his activities. "I'll go to my grave believing he didn't do anything until someone shows me a video of him participating in whatever they're saying that he did," said [David] Sage, who later flashed his large ring with Paterno's name engraved on the side, the same ring he showed Joe's sons, Scott and Jay, at their father's on-campus memorial viewing in January. " . . . I think if you looked up the word integrity in the dictionary, you'd see his picture there."He might as well have added that if someone ever showed him such a video, he'd "know" it was a fake. Assuming for the sake of argument that the above remains this man's position in a year -- unless some pretty good evidence against Paterno having a role in the cover-up somehow surfaces -- this is a nearly perfect example of evasion, a refusal to think. (There is the possibility that the man is in temporary denial, too shocked to believe the evidence yet.) Most people have no trouble deciding whether to expend more effort or give up on persuading someone who is less intelligent or informed. However, some people (including myself at times in the past) don't make this call with as much ease when someone is evasive. That's a problem, because a cultural activist cannot waste his time -- or far worse, his energy -- by investing it in attempting to persuade someone who is evasive. Aside from comment threads here, I almost never participate in on-line discussions, but when I do look at them, I usually see someone who is obviously right about something allowing someone who is obviously wrong (and being evasive) to waste his time and energy by making a reply. One clue that the person in the right is wasting his time is that he is becoming angry out of frustration. It is far better to look for help with one's persuasiveness from people one knows to be conscientious and helpful, and then to always work to reach a broader audience than any one individual. Even in an online discussion, there is a broader audience -- lurkers and passers-by -- who might be open to the points one wants to make. It is the broader audience, and the fact that there are likely to be receptive minds there that one must remember when promoting one's cause. Strive to be persuasive, but don't beat yourself up if persuasion doesn't work on everyone. -- CAV Updates Today: Corrected a typo and corrected the wording in a sentence about the example of evasion. For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Atheists Don't Need NanniesAtheists Don't Need Nannies: In two news stories, we see self-proclaimed advocates of tolerance undercutting the causes they allegedly espouse -- and coming across as thin-skinned ninnies in the process -- by resorting to government-backed threats, rather than persuasion. We'll look at the more obvious offense first, which Michelle Malkin writes about, in which the mayor of a major American city threatens to a restaurant chain with government discrimination because he disagrees with the views of its outspoken owners regarding such matters as gay marriage. This week, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino declared, "Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston." He recklessly slandered [sic] the company by accusing it of "discriminat(ing) against the population." And he warned ominously: "If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult -- unless they open up their policies."I can't help but offer free campaign advice for any future opponent of Thomas Menino in the form of a campaign slogan: "Don't let Thomas Menino close the Freedom Trail." This atheist does not share Malkin's obvious sympathy with the religious views of the restaurant chain's owners. However, it isn't the business of the mayor to violate the property rights of the Cathy family simply because he disagrees with them and they choose to shape their chain's policies based on their views. (He compounds this offense with hypocrisy by condemning the owners for discrimination and tops that with sacrilege by invoking the Founding Fathers.) As for the proper way to protest the Cathys' arbitrary and anachronistic views, there are numerous ways that individual citizens can exercise their freedom of speech, perhaps by organizing a voluntary boycott. (Hell, the Cathys have already spotted them one day of the week by closing on Sundays.) Another thin-skinned secularist who apparently has little confidence in the persuasive power of reason has also chosen to abuse improper government force: [John] Wolff, a Lancaster resident who said he's never been to Prudhomme's, recently filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission claiming the 22-year-old restaurant should not give discounts based on religion. "I bear them no ill will," he said, "but they shouldn't be pushing religion."The restaurant offers a ten percent discount to anyone wielding a (gasp!) church bulletin on Sunday. I don't care for this policy, either, but it's their restaurant, and they have the right (whether the government protects it or not) to charge whatever price to whomever they please. There is no right to be free from other people acting according to their own judgement, unless they actually violate the rights of others by doing so. Not being able to enjoy a Chick-Fil-A sandwich provided by a company whose owners I agree with doesn't harm me. Neither does being "annoyed" because a restaurant has people bring church bulletins in for discounts. -- CAV For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post |
Objectivism Online Recent Forum PostsLatest EssaysLatest NewsThe Objectivism Wiki: Recent Changes
Meta-Blog ArchivesRecent Meta-Blog Entries
Powered by Joomla | Designed by David Veksler |


text:
- Mens
- Women
- Kids
- Accessories
- Brands
- Almost
- Alpinestars
- Ambig
- Ambsn
- Anarchy
- Arnette
- Atwater
- Aussie Dogs
- Billabong
- Blind
- Brixton
- Bullet
- Chocolate
- Cobian
- Creature
- Dakine
- Darkstar
- Designs by Fanatics
- Diamond Supply Co
- Dot Dash
- Electric
- Element
- Enjoi
- Ergo
- Ezekiel
- Fad Treasures
- Famous
- Filtrate
- Flip
- Fourstar
- Fox
- Freestyle
- Freewaters
- Girl
- Go Barefoot
- Hart & Huntington
- Havaianas
- Hurley
- Independent
- Jack O'Neill
- Jedidiah
- Koastal
- Krux
- Lost
- Lucy Love
- Footwear
- Sale
- Skate
- Moto
Price Range
Click image to enlargeOrder today, receive no later than
Tuesday, June 25th
Some limitations apply$4.99 3-day shipping. Need it faster?
Throw caution to the wind and set out on an adventure without any roadmaps in the Rider full zip hoodie from Lost! It features an embroidered logo shield on the left chest, a branding patch on the left arm and American flag patch on the right, two front pockets with a colorful tag overlay and super comfy heathered construction. So go ahead and ride off into the unknown - what's the worst that could happen?- 55% Cotton/45% Polyester
- Lost full zip hoodie sweatshirt
- Soft fleece lining
- Woven Lost shield applique at left chest
- Woven patches at each shoulder
- Contrast stitching
- Hood with drawstring
- Custom Lost zipper pull
- Two front pockets
- Woven striped Lost tag at pocket
- Rib-knit cuffs & waist
- Imported
Lost Customers also liked:
Have a Suggestion?
Have a Suggestion?
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.491609 Lost_Rider_II_Black_Full_Zip_Heathered_Hoodie_Sweatshirt http://images.fanatics.com/lf http://chaingenerator.ff.p10/Chain/Generate/491609-0 false We are unable to customize this item with the text you have entered. Please try a different entry again. Your current entry cannot be processed due to guidelines for past and present player names. Please create a new entry.For Customer Service Call: 1-855-271-5437 - Kids

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Pauline Riley, 81, of the Bashan area near Long Bottom, Ohio, died November 27, 2012.
Funeral services will be held at 10 a.m. on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the Anderson McDaniel Funeral Home in Racine with Rev. Don Walker officiating. Burial will follow in the Whites Cemetery near Kenna, West Virginia. Family and friends may call from 2-4 p.m. and 6-8 p.m. on Friday, November 30, 2012, at the funeral home.


text:
RCPS Images Available for SOL Questions. Click on the file name to see the graphic enlarged.
Click on the arrow keys to advance one page at a time or on the page numbers below to jump to those pages. Last updated 4/3/03.
Click here to return to the SOL Questions main page.


text:
(note for QC residents)
Share on
With our exclusive, newly redesigned chassis now featured throughout the Renegade lineup, the best sport performance and 4x4-capable ATV remains controlled and nimble on the trail. And, of course, it remains the leader of the pack in available power. Plus, its signature Can-Am look makes it clear you mean business. But whatever Renegade you ride, they all feature the same dedication to performance, handling and design. From the first time you take off and lean into a turn, you know you're definitely on a Can-Am Off-Road vehicles.
The best sport 4x4 performance you can get.
Loaded with extras for unparalleled performance and style.
Your new Can-Am ATV is closer than you think.
Demand XPS
All Outlander MAX arereengineered from theground up in 2013
New engine and chassisfor the finestmud performance.
Read and comment the latest community information.
Be among the first totry the new 2013 models.
See how the Renegadeis still a leader insport performance.
Get a closer look


text:
Chevy Silverado Travel Carriers
Vehicle Accessories to Enhance and Protect.
NEW Rainier Bike Rack
Item | Price | Shipping | Qty |
THIS IS NOT A VEHICLE SPECIFIC PRODUCT This swingaway bike and cargo rack system offers first-class clearance, capacity and security. Traveling with bicycles and biking gear has never been easier. Load and unload up to 4 bikes on the Bike Rack and cram all your gear onto your Cargo Rack. This hitch rack and bike rack combination is totally interchangeable: use the Bike Rack, use the Cargo Rack-- or use them both at the same time Best of all, it sits on a swinging frame, providing easy access to the rear of your vehicle. Never climb on top of your car again! New design carries bicycles off the rear of the rack, allowing for maximum cargo capacity in the basket Click here for installation instruction Includes free Single-Key Hitch/Cable Lock for bike and rack security Designed for use with any Class III/IV 2 INCH hitch receiver or Class II 1 1/4 INCH hitch receiver. NEW ROLLBACK PRICING |


text:
Reports and Testimonies - Browse by agency
Browse By:
All Agencies » Territories » Guam
Guam (31 - 40 of 64 items)Medicare HMOsDurable Medical EquipmentMedigap InsuranceU.S. Insular AreasU.S. Insular Areas
Development Strategy and Better Coordination Among U.S. Agencies Are Needed
NSIAD-94-62, Feb 7, 1994 U.S. Insular AreasMilitary BasesToxic SubstancesFood Stamp ProgramNatural Resources and Environment |


text:
How do I feel about Nash to the Lakers? Where do you want to start?
Originally published: Jul 5, 2012 - 9:32 am
In the hours since the news of Steve Nash to the Los Angeles Lakers (and oh by the way here's a Darren Rovell twitpic to really turn your stomach), I haven't been able to hold a thought in my head without it being replaced by another, and another, and another. It's like trying to catch a mouse that has snuck into your house. Every time I think I have it cornered it slips away.
So instead of one thought, I'll give you a stream-of- consciousness-type column that hopefully by the end, will have produced a clear what-do-I-think epiphany of the biggest story of the decade.
I am at The Amazing Spider Man when I see the tweet. That completely unnecessary reboot (Emma Stone is awfully pretty though) will always be associated with THE DAY THE SUNS TRADED STEVE NASH TO THE LAKERS. My co-host broke the news, but I when tell my 14-year-old son about it I add "I sure hope he's wrong." To which the wise young man reminds me it was bad for the show if Gambo was wrong. I respond by saying today I didn't care.
Once it was clear Gambo was right, I am literally queasy. The medium popcorn and dollar refill of Coke is churning. It was shock. Anxiety. Disbelief.
I read today that, according to Nash's agent, Nash briefly contemplated retiring from the NBA. As I walked out of the Harkins San Tan, I briefly contemplate renouncing my citizenship from Planet Orange, like some kind of a Cuban defector ("I seek political asylum with the Oklahoma City Thunder").
I try to focus my emotions. Who am I upset at? Nash for wanting this? Or the Suns for enabling it?
I thought about those words that brought me comfort a week ago: "I think it would be hard to put on a Lakers jersey." When Nash said that to an ESPN radio station in New York, it brought peace. I feel lied to. Flat out, straight up lied to.
But wait. It takes two. How could the Suns do this to Suns fans? How could they have so little knowledge or interest in just how much WE HATE THE LAKERS? I thought of the old radio adage; know your audience. Clearly, I thought, the law firm of Sarver, Babby and Blanks doesn't know theirs.
Keep in mind, this was all before I left the parking lot. Deep breath. Take the emotion out of it. Think rationally. Take the information that was given, cover the word "Lakers" with my thumb, and evaluate the move��ok, heart rate slowing down. Telling myself at least they got something for him. Somebody tweeted me and suggested that the picks could be used as part of a deal to the Hornets as part of a sign and trade for Eric Gordon. Ok, that's good too. I feel normalcy envelop me.
Then I remember that sports is emotion. Take the emotion out of it? I'm not a friggin' robot. I remember what I told Jon Bloom after the Suns drafted Kendall Marshall; when it comes to the Suns, I'm irrational. I don't run and hide from that.
No -- the angel on my right shoulder whispers in my ear -- sports is a business and all that happened today was a business transaction. Then another tweeter reminds me that sports are merely entertainment, like the movies, and with Nash in L.A. I've got another reason to loathe that team. The badder the bad guy, the better the story (it's the reason why Die Hard is one of the best action flicks ever).
Then the devil on my left shoulder chimes in by coming up with the analogy that, in a sports sense, my wife just left me for my best friend. Or even worse, my most-hated business rival. I can feel myself falling into an abyss. Now I've got so many thoughts swirling around that I have to ask my wife to drive to the D-backs game so I can think. And tweet.
I think about the Suns and wonder if four picks and three million bucks are worth alienating half of your fan base. And really, let's be honest about the value of those picks. Second round picks in the NBA remind me of signs that you see that read "Dirt for sale." Late first round picks are nothing more than putting all your money on one number at a roulette table. Did the Suns really get anything for Nash?
A friend compares the deal to the day the team traded Dennis Johnson for Rick Robey. I cried that day, have I ever told you that? I think of the day Charles Barkley did a nationally televised interview with NBC (halftime of Game 1 of the NBA Finals between the Sonics and Bulls) all but demanding he be traded from the Suns. I start comparing those three kicks to the midsection to judge which hurt the worse.
I think that given his love of filmmaking both in front of and behind the camera, I think that L.A. is a perfect place for Nash. And besides, what NBA player doesn't want to play for the Lakers?
I go to bed mad as hell.
I woke up with new perspective and new information.
Nash, we found out, was desperate to stay close to his family. He's only an hour away, his agent says. That, while playing on a contender, means everything to him. Reading Nash's statement and the gratitude he expresses to Robert Sarver ("couldn't be more grateful" and "says a lot about his character") and I feel my stance softening.
In addition to signing Gordon to the big offer sheet (smelling sign and trade with Hornets), the Suns have added Michael Beasley and Goran Dragic. They're going to be interesting next year (I didn't say good, I said interesting).
Then I think about my own hypocrisy. I've been upset with the Suns for years for not dealing Nash sooner in the name of getting something for him sooner. I'm going to complain now that they did what I wanted them to do all along? That seems a little unfair. Then I think about Sarver and his reputation, not among the fans but among the players of the NBA. That rep took a hit during the lockout. Did he just get some cred back for acquiescing to Nash's wish? ("Hey, everything you heard about me was untrue�did you see what I did for Nash?") If they can walk away with Eric Gordon, I'll be impressed. Maybe even pleased.
I'm about to get in the car and drive to the station and I'm sure five more thoughts will pop into my head.
How do I feel about Nash to the Lakers? You didn't expect an answer did you?


text:
Three-pointers: Greg Monroe takes another step forward in Detroit Pistons' loss to Orlando Magic | MLive.com Didn't get any of his shot blocked on his last 15 attempts. BIG IMPROVEMENT there.
I believe I was typing this as you were lambasting me in the Knicks thread. IT'S IN THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE!!!! The Magic crew of Matt Goukas and the Poor Man's Mike Breen incredulously commented on the same article finishing with Goukas saying, 'He doesn't even start for them.' Monroe has probably been the brightest spot for the Pistons lately. It is a compliment towards him to say you can't even notice when he is out there because it means he isn't committing stupid rookie fouls or being singled out by the refs for being a rookie. I couldn't believe it when he blocked Bass from behind. He still came dangerously close to hitting the underside of the rim on one of his hoops. I do not think it is unrealistic to think that will improve though. Was Stuckey out there for this 1st half of the 4th Q? If he was I did not notice him at all. In 33 more seconds of PT Jameer Nelson out boarded Hot Rod Stuckey 6 to 3. That makes (at least) 3 straight games where The Greatest Physical Specimen to Ever Grace the PG Position has been out-rebounded by Brandon Jennings, Ray Felton and Jameer Nelson. That was a really nice pass CCG made to Monroe for his first hoop. He played more - and better - last night (24 minutes!) than I thought he would in any of the games this week. O-Town isn't that bad a matchup for him yet I find it a stretch to say he played well. Orlando and Detroit aren't that dis-similar in their style of play. They have Howard which the Pistons obviously do not have and they get more consistent ball movement for their 3's, but they are mostly a non-post perimeter team. I wonder how much difference a in his prime Ben Wallace would make on this team?
That come from behind Monroe block on Bass was a thing of beauty. This was actually a great game. It always tickles me how the Pistons, even at their weakest, expose Howard. We may be the team that plays Orlando the best in this league. I'm hoping for a 1-8 seed upset this summer! We seem to have very good ball rotation when we have TMac-Gordon-CV on the floor together. I agree with many people here that our bench unit would be much better with a linup of TMac-Gordon-Daye-CV-Monroe. You have TMac who can draw double teams and Gordon, Daye and CV are all good shooters. Granted defensively that team is not the strongest, but they're adequate as a bench unit. It's about time to tighten this rotation to 10 men if we're starting Stuck-Rip-Prince-JMax-Wallace.
I found it hilarious when the Orlando commentators refered to the first half as BIZARRO HALF because the Pistons didn't double team Howard but the Magic double teamed like crazy.
Fixed your post. The funny thing about this season is the possibility of where we would be if JJ wasn't hurt and had a season at least similar to last year. Add him to the above starting unit at PF and let CV come off the bench and we have a whole different look and feel to the ball club.


text:
Our travel brochure said this place had a reception, bar, restaurant and safe deposit boxes, wrong! Reception consists of an office that has your room and name on the glass window should you arrive after noon, as it's closed from then on. No bar or restaurant either. The apartment we stayed in was quite dirty with food crumbs under the... More
- Also Known As:
- Villagg Tal-Fanal Hotel
- Villagg Tal-Fanal Hotel Ghasri
- Reservation Options:
- TripAdvisor is proud to partner with Booking.com, Hotels.com, Olotels, Venere, Tingo, HotelsClick and Expedia so you can book your Villagg Tal-Fanal reservations with confidence. We help millions of travellers each month to find the perfect hotel for both holiday and business trips, always with the best discounts and special offers.