Inside an urban war

Want to know what a war is like? Great article in the NYT.

Democracy vs Individual Rights (cont'd)

A response to my previous post:

My initial reaction is that i don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but i think it's dangerous to go to first principles (which deserved headline billing in 1776) and ignore the fact that the US is a 10 trillion dollar economy encompassing 300 million people. Another way to look at it is to consider China, which has 1.3 billion people - one view for the difference in governance between China and western democracies is that the expediencies of different governance models changes at certain inflection points. So what you are saying may be fine for a small republic but is not sufficiently nuanced to be able to respond to the demands of governing the USA. One other thing I would add - while I don't disagree with your individual rights vs. religionist argument, I think we have to agree that there are other principles that our society puts a premium on which, while not religion, do give prefer to some over others. These are also societal judgments of the majority imposed on the minority.

My response:

I would agree the American model of governance is not the most efficient. With all its intricate checks and balances, it was deliberately designed to be inefficient; so that no one man, group, or party could wield unchecked power on the populace. Surely a different government model with more central control and less protection to individuals would be more expedient; the worry of course is what is it that the government is trying to expedite? And is it right? To lapse into extreme examples, a democratic Greece voted to put Socrates to death for his heretical views, and a democratic Germany elected Hitler. The principle of individual rights is not an arbitrary antiquated obstacle to effective governance; it is our guarantee that government will be subordinate to moral law.

Our society certainly places limitations on individuals, for example, we may be imprisoned for violating the rights of others. These limitations are consistent with the principle of individual rights - to violate another individual's rights is to deny the base of rights, and thus your own - and recognize the government's proper role to defend individuals from force initiated by others.

Despite their good intentions, I do have issue with other societal judgments of the majority imposed on the minority (affirmative action, seatbelt laws, laws against euthanasia). I don't believe it's the government's proper role to force the citizenry to be moral. In our own personal spheres, we should have the right to make choices. And we should have the right to be wrong.

Democracy vs Individual Rights

In the wake of Bush's election, many liberals are worried about the threat to the separation of church and state. As they should be. However, as this author notes, without fundamental grounding in the principle of individual rights, ideas such as the separation of church and state become empty slogans. Effectively, we have the tyranny of a majority who feels that democracy justifies imposing their beliefs on the entire population. What they, and we, often forget is that America is not a democracy; it’s a constitutional republic, where the power of government is subordinate to individual rights. At least that’s what it was designed to be. The 20th century saw the erosion of individual rights, as the government became more and more entangled in private economic affairs. The corollary to that erosion is that we have lost our principle argument for protecting freedom from the religionists.

Camille Paglia

While browsing Andrew Sullivan's blog, I happened upon an interview with Camille Paglia. She's a feminist intellectual who broke from the doctrinaire feminism that arose in the 70's. Some money quotes:

Capitalism is an art form, an Apollonian fabrication to rival nature. It is hypocritical for feminists and intellectuals to enjoy the pleasures and conveniences of capitalism while sneering at it. Everyone born into capitalism has incurred a debt to it. Give Caesar his due.

A woman simply is, but a man must become. Masculinity is risky and elusive. It is achieved by a revolt from woman, and it is confirmed only by other men. Manhood coerced into sensitivity is no manhood at all.

If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts.

It is capitalist America that produced the modern independent woman. Never in history have women had more freedom of choice in regard to dress, behavior, career, and sexual orientation.

Woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove that they are worthy of woman's attention.

Extreme Games

I've found a new favourite voice on the Boston airwaves: Jay Severin. His pull no punches, take no prisoners approach to political punditry is the most entertaining thing on radio. Some Severin gems:

• On Bill Clinton: “the Adolf Hitler of American politics ... a domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States; a traitor.”
  
  
• On Hillary Clinton: “that cynical, criminal, sociopathic bitch ... one of the worst people on the planet.”
  
  
• On taxpayer-funded services he doesn’t want to see: “free turkey basters for reproducing lesbians.”
  

In a world where the dominant position is to stand with both feet firmly planted on either side of the fence, Jay Severin's unabashed opinion radio is so refreshing.

A malu supermodel?

Nirali Magazine has a feature on Julie Titus, a malayalee American recently featured on America's Next Top Model.

The political divide: The good news

As Michael Hurd argues, we still have time to make the case for individual rights, limited government and freedom.

Why philosophy matters

Ayn Rand's speech to the graduating class at West Point, 1974

Some highlights:

You might say, as many people do: "Aw, I never think in such abstract terms--I want to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems--what do I need philosophy for?" My answer is: In order to be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems--i.e., in order to be able to live on earth.

You might claim-as most people do--that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure--nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: "Act first, think afterward"? They got it from John Dewey.

Some people might answer: "Sure, I've said those things at different times, but I don't have to believe that stuff all of the time. It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today." They got it from Hegel. They might say: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: "But can't one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?" They got it from Richard Nixon--who got it from William James.

Now ask yourself: if you are not interested in abstract ideas, why do you (and all men) feel compelled to use them? The fact is that abstract ideas are conceptual integrations which subsume an incalculable number of concretes--and that without abstract ideas you would not be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems. You would be in the position of a newborn infant, to whom every object is a unique, unprecedented phenomenon. The difference between his mental state and yours lies in the number of conceptual integrations your mind has performed.

You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational conviction--or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.

But the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define you philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation--or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

Moral values

The exit polls indicated that the leading issue on the minds of American voters last Tuesday was morality. Nicholas Provenzo offers astute commentary on the state of morality in America today. In brief, neither the left nor the right offers a rational code of morality.

Susan Sarandon in la la land

So Susan Sarandon was on Real-Time with Bill Maher on Friday. Apparently she thinks we're still in 2000. Ms. Sarandon hysterically claimed all kinds of voter fraud and irregularity. She seems to believe 4 million hanging chads got past an army of Democrat lawyers.

Also on the program were Noam Chomsky and Andrew Sullivan. Maher shamelessly treated Chomsky like a folk hero. To his credit, Sullivan set the record straight on the America-hating, holocaust denying, terrorist apologist.

Nathaniel Branden's take on Objectivism

Just finished Nathaniel Branden's book, My Years with Ayn Rand. Branden, who Rand once anointed as her John Galt (the embodiment of Objectivism), has a fascinating perspective on the controversial novelist-philosopher. Check out his essay on the benefits and hazards of her philosophy.

My e-mail to the vice president

Mr. Vice President,

I am deeply concerned that our country has failed to adequately respond to the chief sponsor of the terrorists who gutted our cities on September 11, 2001. President’s Bush’s rhetoric has been encouraging, in particular his statement of the Bush doctrine and his identification of the axis of evil. Further, removing the Taliban and Saddam’s despicable regime were certainly justifiable and perhaps strategically useful. However, we have not taken any meaningful measures against the one country that is the ideological root for the terror campaign against us: Iran.

Iran declared war against our country on November 4, 1979, when Khomeini’s thugs stormed our Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans as prisoners for 444 days. In 1982 they sponsored the truck bombing that killed 241 Marines in Lebanon. Iran was linked to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen in 2000 and according to the 9/11 Commission, to the September 11 attack.

For 25 years we have pursued a policy of appeasement towards the Iranians. President Carter set the terms by failing to respond militarily. President Reagan, contrary to popular belief, continued our policy of appeasement by negotiating with the Iranians. President Clinton failed to respond to the U.S.S. Cole bombing. And now President Bush, while correctly identifying Iran as a state sponsor of terror and part of the Axis of Evil, has continued our appeasement by leaning on the hapless European negotiators. All the while the Iranian mullahs chant “Death to America” and pursue their uranium enrichment program.

The only obstacle to victory in the War on Terror is our will to fight it. I strongly urge you to prevent the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Thank you.

The Enlightenment ended long ago

In his NYT Op-Ed contribution, Gary Willis described Bush's re-election as the day the Enlightenment went out. Well I have news for him. The Enlightenment has been out for decades. And it wasn't the religionists who extinguished it. The prime culprits were those whose sacred trust was to keep that precious fire burning: the philosophers.

Today's "philosophers" are the children of Kant, and have taken his critique of pure reason to its logical conclusion: the dismissal of the very subject of philosophy. The entire "post-modern" and "deconstructionist" movements are premised on the impossibility of objective values and objective truth. One of America's most prestigious philosophers, Richard Rorty, wrote: "Nothing grounds our practices, nothing legitimizes them, nothing shows them to be in touch with the way things are."

Religion will always win when people are forced to choose between religious answers and no answers. Mr. Willis is correct in his prescription: we do need a return to our Englightenment roots. I suspect however that he tragically misunderstands the nature of those roots. We need liberal politicians - liberal in the classical sense - who recognize that government should not be used to right historical wrongs or cure social ills or force people to be good, but only to defend individual rights from force or fraud. We need intellectuals who will assert a rational non-religious code of ethics. And most fundamental of all, we need philosophers who will revive a pro-reality metaphysics and a pro-reason epistemology. We need a return to the Aristotelian principles that ended the Dark Ages, sparked the Renaissance, fueled the Enlightenment, and birthed the greatest, most moral nation in the history of the planet: ours.