The author is an ex-submariner, questioner of authority, cigar smoking fly-fishing fanatic who wants to live to be 103.
Improved Clinch
Saturday, November 30, 2002
Capitalism and Faith
My thought provoking friend Arthur Silber has thrown some questions out to those who believe in God in this post titled A Few Notes for Religionists -- And a Few Questions for Them. Now I consider Arthur a formidable proponent of reason who is unafraid to ask tough questions, as well he should be. Be that as it may, I will address the questions he has put down in the previously mentioned post as best I can.
Arthur's first question is, "Do you utilize your religious faith as a justification for capitalism -- or do you defend capitalism on other grounds? If so, what are the other, non-religious reasons you provide as your defense of capitalism?
My answer is, no, I do not utilize my faith as a justification for capitalism. My faith in God is simply my personal faith and it is totally separate from capitalism. My faith will affect how I conduct business, but it is distinctly separate. What then are my "non-religious" reasons for defending capitalism? First and foremost is my total support of individual freedom, free will. Capitalism, the private production, pricing and exchange of goods and services in a free and competitive market is the only economic system in which free individuals can operate. No one should be compelled to purchase any good or service for which they do not have a need. Any outside force, typically governmental, that exercises control over a capitalist market is impeding not only my will, but capitalism. Secondly, capitalism allows individuals to conduct business for their own rational self interest, an integral part of individual freedom. My faith operates the same. My faith in God is for my own rational self interest and I exercise my faith of my own free will. Faith in God has nothing to do with capitalism just as capitalism has nothing to do with faith. A believer in God can have faith that God is going bless them in business, but unless he has some kind of business plan and a product or service that free individuals wish to purchase the business will in all probability fail. That's business. Faith is faith and capitalism is capitalism. The one commonality between faith and capitalism is the exercise of our own free will. This one, very important, common feature, free will, is the main reason I unequivocally support capitalism.
Arthur's second question is as follows, "If you do not consider an ethics of rational self-interest to be an underlying philosophical component of capitalism, what ethics do you think capitalism embodies? And if it's not altruism (as I defined it in my earlier posts), what is it? More specifically -- and I have in mind my friend John Venlet in particular in this connection, since I think his posts convey an ethics of rational self-interest more than any other, but I think others may be similar to John in this respect -- how important is altruism in your ethical theory, and how do you see it fitting into your advocacy of capitalism?
First, the definition of altruism as taken from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others." I have not found the word altruism used anywhere in the Bible. You will find the word tithe. Tithing, once again from the dictionary, "to pay or give a tenth part of esp. for the support of the church," is recommended to those who believe in God. This is quite different from altruism. I cannot be an altruist but I can tithe. In this earlier post of Arthur's, he quotes Nathaniel Branden on altruism,
A disastrous confusion in the minds of most people concerning the nature of altruism is the belief that altruism represents or derives from the principle of benevolence, good will and kindness toward others. Advocates of altruism take great pains to encourage this belief--to establish a "package-deal," as it were--so as to conceal from their victims the actual meaning of the altruist morality.
Such a view of altruism is worse than mistaken: like the perversion entailed in the technique of the "Big Lie," it represents the exact opposite of the truth; altruism and benevolence are not merely different, they are mutually inimical and contradictory. This is absolutely correct. Altruism is "inimical and contradictory" to tithing, benevolence and capitalism. Society as a whole would collapse if everyone was an altruist. We would all be so busy devoting ourselves to someone else, nothing would get done. I don't care if they are Mother Theresa or the Pope, any person who uses altruism as the basis for their faith is in effect attempting to be Christ in the here and now, which cannot be done. God does not call you to altruism, he calls to concern for your fellow men, but not at the expense of your own well being.
Arthur's third question is, "More generally: if, as John does, you acknowledge that your belief in God arises solely from faith, how important are your religious beliefs to you in general terms? What other areas of your life do they influence? And, to put one of the related questions more bluntly: doesn't it bother you that you can't defend your belief in God on rational grounds? If not, why not? In this connection, you may want to review Diana Hsieh's essay, "Why Be An Atheist?", and Diana's post about faith and reason, including these remarks of hers:"
In short, beliefs have effects upon a person's life. Belief in God is no exception. It can result in undervaluing the living, as theists often expect to see loved ones after death. It can result in an indifference towards evil, as God will judge everyone in the end according to His Plan. It can result in the fatalism that Voltaire attacked in Candide due to a "best of all possible worlds" Leibnizianism. It can encourage superficial and magical thinking where contradictions, inconsistencies, paradoxes, puzzles, and other mysteries are too-quickly attributed to God rather than investigated rationally. It can result in the use of faith or feeling as a claim to knowledge in other areas of life. It can result in attempting to find life's meaning through God rather than in one's own choices and values. Such are just a few of the risks of belief in God on faith alone.
Those who believe in God on faith alone may object that their belief in God has no such effects on their life. In the unlikely event that such is true, then what is the point of belief at all? What is the point of belief if it does not comfort when loved ones die, if it does not give a sense of purpose to the universe, and so on?
This multi-part question is the most subjective one. First, how important is my faith in God in general terms? Personally, I would say very important but with the understanding that there is no way I can be perfect. If I was perfect, I would be God and there's no way that is going to happen. Everything I do, I do of my own free will but I allow God's word, as presented in the Bible, to be a guide. Not everything I do will be judged as worthy of God by man. But I am not concerned with how man judges me, I am only concerned with how God will judge me. Faith influences all areas of my life but understand that I will go through life with these words from Matthew 10 to guide me "Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." If that isn't a call for rational self interest, I don't know what is.
To answer the second part of the Arthur's third question I reply yes and no. Yes, not being able to present or "defend" my faith rationally bothers me if those who I interact with, knowing my faith in God, choose to label me irrational and will not consider me as someone who can contribute to other rational discussions. No, because my faith is personal and my personal beliefs are shaped by my own free will. I will not force feed any person my faith, because it is mine. I may attempt to verbalize my faith as a form of witnessing, but I will not compel anyone to God. It cannot be done, rationally or irrationally.
John Venlet - 1:51:00 PM |
Permalink
Thursday, November 28, 2002
Thanksgiving Reading
On a day when Americans recall events back in time and a people who landed on the shores of this country yearning for freedom, I urge you to contemplate how many of your freedoms you willingly have given away to the political machinery that is our government. With this in mind, I recommend reading two essays. First, Civil Disobedience by Thoreau. Second, Is It Too Late For a Political Solution? by Billy Beck.
Happy Thanksgiving.
John Venlet - 8:46:00 AM |
Permalink
A couple of months ago I said that I detested the sloganization of my name by Islamists around the world. I'm beginning to rethink that position. Maybe it's not so bad to be a Rushdie among other "Rushdies." For the most part I'm comfortable with, and often even proud of, the company I'm in.
John Venlet - 11:09:00 AM |
Permalink
Shoot a Policeman for Freedom
Eric Raymond has an interesting post on the recent killing of a policeman in California. The officer was shot while refueling his cruiser by one Andrew McRae who, justifiably, has some concerns about police state tactics. Eric's post is titled When to Shoot a Policeman and I agree with Eric about when we SHOULD shoot a policeman. Read Eric's post and decide for yourself when you feel shooting a policeman would be justified.
John Venlet - 8:04:00 AM |
Permalink
Another Call for Socialism
This is nothing more than a call for Socialism. Carol B. Hallett, president of the Air Transportation Association or, more succinctly, Socialists for Control of Air Transportation, states that unless something is done about air security costs, the airline industry may need to be nationalized. So, instead of letting the market control what happens within the industry, the Socialists for Control of Air Transportation wish to strap their unsound business onto the backs of the American people so we can all suffer from their bad business plans. Let's face the facts people. With all due respect to pilots, who have their own socialist organization so they get theirs, airlines are nothing more than streamlined, air worthy buses that travel great distances between stops. The major difference between the two is the price of the ticket. Hundreds of dollars rather than 50 cents.
John Venlet - 7:41:00 AM |
Permalink
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
Islam - Accept it or Die
Islam does not mean peace, unless you're a Muslim. If you're not a Muslim, it means die you miserable infidel or live a second rate life because you are a lesser being. Pat Robertson won't say this as stridently as I have said it, nor will Jerry Falwell, but no matter how you feel about these two, at least admit that they are not attempting to convince you that Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is nothing more than a bastardized version of Judeo Christianity with an emphasis on violence against those who do not accept the words of "The Prophet." Brian Micklethwait, a Samizdata contributor, compares Muhummed to Lenin in this essay and Greg Swann, who blogs both for No Treason and Presence of Mind, pens an essay on Islam and Moral Equivalence. Most readers who have stopped by this blog won't need convincing in regards to the perfidy of Islam, but until the world accepts the truth of what is being said about Islam by Robertson, Falwell, Swann, Micklethwait and others, be prepared for the swallowers/followers of Islamic claptrap to demand your life without your acquiescence.
John Venlet - 1:39:00 PM |
Permalink
Friday, November 22, 2002
She Said Mean Things
Wanda Hudak, what a name. It's got that old fashioned ring to it. Wanda chairs a committee that oversees the Department of Social Services in Broome County, New York. It seems that Wanda's proclivity for speaking the truth, rather than sugar coating it in moral and cultural equivalency, has some folks up in arms. Here's a little taste,
The problem with Broome County's social services is women of low morals and their drug-dealing, abusive boyfriends, said the chairwoman of the county committee that oversees the Department of Social Services.
Further, said Legislator Wanda Hudak of Endicott, the solution to the abusive boyfriends is "a 25-cent bullet."
Read the whole article here and then go tell your mommy that the lady said mean things.
Frequent US visitor and Australian blogger party man Tim Blair defends Americans in his most recent column in The Australian. Evidently the Aussies have the same problems with liberal media stories as the U.S. and the rest of the world. Read Tim's column here and then go and visit his blog.
John Venlet - 1:33:00 PM |
Permalink
Taking a Stance
Susanna, over at Cut on the Bias, has posted a well written essay that examines abortion and the death penalty and their apparent incongruities as they relate to pro life and pro death penalty advocates versus pro choice and anti death penalty advocates. I only disagree with one statement in her post, that the death penalty is wielded too frequently. Give Susanna's post a read and don't pass up the comments either.
John Venlet - 10:17:00 AM |
Permalink
Beware
Predation - noun - the act of preying or plundering. Predators are insidious, their acts of depravity at times so seductive victims don't realize the trap they have succumbed to until it is too late. Lynette Warren at No Treason shines a light on the most rapacious predator known to man. You've been warned, prepare to defend yourselves.
John Venlet - 9:05:00 AM |
Permalink
I recently posted some comments and a link that looked at the fact that a group Air Force personnel were complaining about the conditions under which they are serving in Afghanistan. I wasn't real impressed. Here's a great cartoon that sums up the Air Force stance nicely. Thanks to CPO Sharkey at Sgt Stryker's Daily Briefing for the link.
John Venlet - 10:00:00 AM |
Permalink
Gay Linquists
There have been big media articles and a number of blog posts examining some recent honorable discharges of gay men from military service. The main reason for the press about this recently is that a group homosexuals were recently discharged who had, or were in training for, Arabic language skills. A much needed skill at this time. Donald Sensing, who blogs One Hand Clapping, has some good links on this issue, including Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan, and provides some thoughts of his own here.
John Venlet - 9:48:00 AM |
Permalink
Loud Neighbors
It seems that Colby Cosh has some noisy neighbors, who keep late hours, which led Colby to contemplate the irrationality of both men and women. Fortunately for us, Colby also keeps late hours and he provides a synopsis of their conversation. Here's a bit of Colby's analysis,
It's easy to indict the race of women on a charge of spasmodic, terrifying irrationality, and most of the ones I know would plead guilty, anyway; but men have their own equally bizarre forms of absurd, spontaneous, and inexplicable behaviour.
Without a doubt, read the rest of Colby's analysis and don't miss the synopsis of the overhead conversation which led to his contemplation.
John Venlet - 9:06:00 AM |
Permalink
Monday, November 18, 2002
Change of Address Notice
Arthur Silber's The Light of Reason has a new home, so update your links accordingly.
John Venlet - 11:23:00 AM |
Permalink
They're Only Acting
Michele, at No Small Victory, has eviscerated a Voxfux essay (say Voxfux real fast 3 times in mixed company) which wants us to believe we should just put our trust in movie stars and the world's problems would be solved. Talk about visions of grandeur.
John Venlet - 10:48:00 AM |
Permalink
Thursday, November 14, 2002
Laws Are Made for Stupid People #386,723,449,003
Many laws are passed to protect us from ourselves, well at least if you're stupid it may protect you from yourself. Here's the latest call for such a law. This particular rallying cry for more laws deals with a perceived need for self-extinguishing cigarettes. You know for those people so drunk they fall asleep in bed or on the couch with a lit cigarette dangling from their lips. You know there's a word or two you can use to describe these people, dumb asses. As for the people who are demanding more legislation to protect these idiots, they pretty much fall into the same category.
John Venlet - 10:08:00 AM |
Permalink
Michele of A Small Victory has posted a thoughtful essay entitled The Price of Freedom. In the essay Michele points out facts that the left uses as leverage against those who support war on Iraq and terrorism in general. Namely that supporters of war are painted as blood thirsty and uncaring when in fact the exact opposite is true. No one, unless you're a Palestinian mother or other Islamofascist associate, really wants to send their sons and daughters off to die. No one. But those of us who support protecting our freedoms, and hope to bring freedom to others, understand that lives may need to be committed to accomplishing this. Meaning, we understand that deaths will occur, but we derive no pleasure from this fact. The world is not a safe place at this time. War is hell. But there are things worse than war. Specifically, living under the tyranny of despots who declare live as I live or die.
John Venlet - 10:45:00 AM |
Permalink
Get Out Your Tin Foil Hats
According to this article from The Observer earth's magnetic field is weakening dramatically. This is troublesome because the field evidently protects us from powerful radiation bursts. Here are a few of the potential problems we humans and others within the animal kingdom could face,
Exactly what will happen when Earth's magnetic field disappears prior to its re-emergence in a reversed orientation is also difficult to assess. Compasses would point to the wrong pole - a minor inconvenience. More importantly, low-orbiting satellites would be exposed to electromagnetic batterings, wrecking them.
In addition, many species of migrating animals and birds - from swallows to wildebeests - rely on innate abilities to track Earth's magnetic field. Their fates are impossible to gauge.
As to humans, our greatest risk would come from intense solar radiation bursts. Normally these are contained by the planet's magnetic field in space. However, if it disappears, particle storms will start to batter the atmosphere.
So, as troublesome as this issue could become, I recommend magnetic therapy. If you are on a budget, and cannot afford to purchase the products listed, I suggest you utilize your entire collection of refrigerator magnets as an alternative source of therapy and protection. And don't forget to wear your tinfoil hats.
Ken Layne offers up the best take I've read on the recent, alleged, Bin Laden audio tape. Here's a few paragraphs that the hand wringers and the no it isn't terrorism folks need to pay close attention to.
But ... regardless if he's alive, there is a system still in place wanting the world to believe he's alive and helming the Death Star. And for all those see-no-evil spokesmen at the White House and FBI, this "Bin Laden" audiotape confirms the Bali blast, Marine murder in Kuwait, French tanker bombing and Russian theater attack are all trademark Al Qaeda murders.
Strange how it's always Al Jazeera confirming the Bin Laden link to the terrorist attacks.
The hell when will this stuff end? Is it like the Internet Bubble? Maybe. The money is being choked off, and the spy-plane work in Yemen and arrests in Bali and lack of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan's cities are good things. But there are so many people who just don't want to believe terrorists are actually terrorizing. How many crimes feature a ringleader who regularly admits everything? How many crimes produce so many voices happy to stand up for the criminals?
John Venlet - 8:19:00 AM |
Permalink
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
I'm Surprised
Arthur Silber has posted a eloquent and persuasive essay entitled The Tragic View of Life. In the essay Arthur discusses our propensity for only recognizing achievements when they occur in the context of suffering, offering as examples the heroic acts on September 11, or acts of altruism after other natural disasters. Arthur then links blogging to this discussion. He specifically mentions the recent events surrounding Bill Quick, who was about to quit blogging because of monetary issues, and when word of this made it out into the blogosphere, there was a sudden outpouring of donations to Bill. The receipt of these funds, which Bill gratefully acknowledged, caused him to reconsider his departure from blogging and he currently is still posting. Bill even offered to return funds he received if people believed they had been bamboozled into donating. Glenn Reynolds has linked to Arthur's post so there is a high probability that the post will receive alot of coverage.
This is all well and good since the funds were freely given. Donated. My surprise at this is that it really is not in keeping with Objectivist ideals. Ayn Rand would not have supported societies or associations. She would have supported the individual and capitalism. This fact does not support what happened with Bill Quick. Many bloggers, Bill Quick included, have PayPal buttons on their sites and if people are so inclined as to desire to donate via the button, so be it. But not many bloggers are earning a living at what they offer up to the world via the internet. People are not donating. I agree that Bill Quick, Glenn Reynolds, Steve Green, Arthur Silber and others too many to list, are read by many people and they all have value. I read alot of blogs and news on a daily basis and value them all. The question is am I willing to pay for what I read. If I couldn't read Bill, Glenn, Arthur or the myriad other blogs I read because I couldn't afford to pay, or didn't want to pay, I would miss them, but I probably could find other writers who I may enjoy just as much and whose thoughts I could read for free. I see what happened with Bill as good, in the sense that people wanted to show their appreciation for his efforts, but bad, in the Objectivist sense, because as much as Bill was marketing his site, his attempts to generate capital from services offered had fallen flat. Announcing his decision to quit blogging was the only catalyst for the donations to Bill. When these donations dry up, what will happen? Does the service he, or any of us who blog, provides appear to be a service that none of us can live without? If Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Green, Arthur Silber or myself, especially myself since I'm a real small fry, decide we are going to charge a monthly fee for access to our blogs, will any of us be able to achieve earnings that will support our daily needs? I tend to doubt it. As much as I like the many blogs I visit on a daily basis, I don't believe I will be paying for what I read. It's not that I don't value every blog I frequent, it's only that the internet offers me access to numerous other options that do not cost me a cent. I'm all for blogging to be a profitable enterprise, but I doubt blogging in and of itself will offer this type of renumeration. Spin offs from blogging are what will offer monetary rewards, not blogs themselves. If Bill Quick or any other blogger out there wants to charge for what they post and can garner a audience willing to pay, yes, I'm all for it. But if I need to be encouraged to pay, because otherwise a blogger may cease posting, and pay only under those circumstances, I really am just part of a society or association that is providing for my support rather than standing on my own individual laurels. I haven't earned an audience, I've been supplied with a paying audience under duress. That is not capitalism or objectivist.
John Venlet - 9:08:00 PM |
Permalink
This Is Not Good
With the passing of the PATRIOT Act, many people were up in arms about impositions on our freedoms here in the U.S. Ashcroft and company were labeled jackbooted thugs with draconian powers. Many people pooh poohed these type of statements as mere rhetoric and scare mongering, which I would tend to agree with, although I do have a concern, and by association, you, if you are an American citizen, should also have concern about further erosion of our liberties. They only take a little at a time you know. With that in mind, I was surprised to learn that U.S. Border Patrol agents have the authority to randomly stop you to determine your citizenship if you live in a state that has an international border. This little blurb, which I found online at one of our local TV stations, states that Michigan is among the first northern border states to implement this program. I was not aware that this was even a law and I find it outraegous. I'm all for elimination of terrorists, by death if possible, but this type of enforcement is just plain wrong, and rather stupid. If the government believes they can eliminate terrorism and illegals in the country by random stops rather than by sound intelligence or stricter immigration policies, we are in a world of shit.
John Venlet - 3:32:00 PM |
Permalink
Great Sex and Stupid Comments
According to a survey of British women by the magazine Top Sante, the best sex is found in long term, committed relationships. This is all well and good and a statement I tend to agree with, and I'm a guy. Now for the stupid comments. The article linked ends with this,
But although 95 percent of women believe being faithful is important in a long-term relationship, 16 percent admitted to having affairs.
Most blamed TV shows such as "Sex And The City (news - Y! TV)" for the breakdown of relationships, with 74 percent saying such programs give out the message that infidelity is normal.
Nothing like laying the blame for your infidelity at the feet of a television show rather than at your wadded up panties after succumbing to some guy's woody in a fit of passion. I know, I know, guys would love to blame their infidelity on a TV show also and probably would if they thought they could get away with it. My point is, the day you start accepting what you watch on TV as justification for your actions, is the day you've surrendered your mind's critical faculties and deserve what ever consequences come your way.
John Venlet - 10:45:00 AM |
Permalink
It Isn't Over, It's Just Getting Started
Andrew Sullivan has a post titled "Is It Over?" that shares an email he received from a reader that asks this question. Here's the readers email,
I have been a very avid reader of your column in the Sunday Times for a number of years now, and for the past few months I have also read your Website daily. I am a huge fan, and applaud your hard work and diligent presentation. However, since last Wednesday, I have lost a bit of interest. The reason for this is nothing to do with your efforts, which have not diminished at all. Rather, the situation has changed dramatically, and I think you need to take account of this. WE HAVE WON. We won the mid-term elections ... and we even won in the UN (quite how, I cannot imagine). We are now the majority, in control, and no longer victims of a left/liberal conspiracy to suppress the will of the American people through the imposition of an establishment elite's left of centre viewpoint. Yes, the media is genarally biased, but in a nation where the Right is generally in control this is less of a worry than before - indeed it may even be a good thing. I am reminded of the last time I actually enjoyed reading the Village Voice. This was the early 1980's, when Reagan was in power (because I along with so many others voted for him) and the conservative agenda dominated. Now the liberals are useful as gadflys - and you need to think about redefining your role.
Andrew states that he agrees with this reader's take "to some extent" but says he doesn't intend to go away. Which is a good thing. Unfortunately, I don't believe Andrew or his reader really understand the depth of the issues we face. In the readers email to Andrew he states "WE HAVE WON." I'm wondering who this "WE" is? The Republicans? Conservatives as a whole? Does he have a mouse in his pocket and is he including the mouse in his description of we? I'll concede that the description "WE HAVE WON" can reasonably mean those people in this country who support clear thinking on the fallacy of multi-culturalism and moral relativism and support decisive action against terrorism and getting rid of Saddam have won minds away from the previously mentioned foolish ideas. The fact remains though that whether it is Republicans, Democrats or any other political party in "power" we still as individuals allow our freedoms to be impinged on but the party in power. We haven't won any more freedom with Republicans as voting majorities in the the House and Senate. We may have gained some clearer thinking on the issues of war and terrorism but we've actually just replaced one type of statism, Democrats, for another. We haven't really won anything. We've only established that protecting ourselves makes sense to more people than not protecting ourselves. If Andrew's, or any other bloggers role, needs to be redefined, it needs to be redefined as real proponents of freedom not as statist Republican or Democrat supporters.
John Venlet - 9:18:00 AM |
Permalink
Blog This
Michele, blogging away as usual at No Small Victory, offers up a few words on what could viewed as blog envy, blog hate, blog effect or blog uselessness, depending, of course, on what you personally think of blogging. I think what Michele says is correct, but decide for yourself, I could just be a self deluded fool.
John Venlet - 8:11:00 AM |
Permalink
Monday, November 11, 2002
Gobble, Gobble, Gobble
I'm curious, do you suppose Moby is talking about farm raised, all white feathered and almost all white meat turkeys or real, multi-hued, run around in the woods turkeys? They both taste good.
“Let them know that there is no proper way to kill and cook these beautiful birds.”
Vegan musician Moby, urging people to call Butterball’s Talk-Turkey Line, which the company set up to offer turkey-cooking techniques.
Quote stolen from Newsweek's Perspectivessite on MSNBC.
John Venlet - 10:58:00 AM |
Permalink
The Right Questions
Lynette Warren is asking the right questions about birth and the care of children over at No Treason. Of course the main question, as Lynette points out, has been "driven into obscurity" by the state. Lynette is not going to be making any NOW feminists happy with this post.
John Venlet - 10:37:00 AM |
Permalink
Whose Afraid of the "Religious Right?"
I've commented on the "religious right" previously while making a few comments on Ann Coulter's book "Slander." Reading Lileks today, I see he's not overly impressed with their power either. Here's a paragraph that sums it up nicely, and parallels what I said in my post, albeit with more color and literary flair,
As for the “religious right,” they are utterly irrelevant to me. I’ve been told for 20 years that they will bring a miserable double-knit Pat Boone theocracy, but the evidence seems lacking. There is nothing I want to hear, read, or see that I cannot hear, read, or see. Now and again they get a book banned from a school, just as the Grievance-American community succeeds in banishing Twain because he uses the N word, but no one can look at the American popular culture in the last 20 years and tell me it’s been moving in a direction that gladdens the heart of Jerry Falwell. I have my hell-in-a-handbasket moments, but they’re not about sex or bad language or violence. They’re about the vulgar, grunting, brainless way in which these subjects are handled. I lament the loss of the gentle innuendo, the graceful aspects of old pop culture, but would I want to live in a society that put the screws on so tight that artistic invention was the only way to express certain human necessities? No. It’s a matter of degrees, of context, of intelligence. I can applaud the Victoria’s Secret catalog that shows up in the mailbox, and decry a culture that wants to tart up 12-year olds and sell thongs to little girls. There’s no contradiction. It’s not an either-or. If the religious right has any effect, it’s prodding people like myself to stand up and get pissed instead of letting it roll over us without comment. And if I find common ground with them on nipple-piercing parental notification laws, then that’s how it works. If they’re on the other side of the barricade when it comes anti-sodomy laws, then that’s how it works.
John Venlet - 10:27:00 AM |
Permalink
Friday, November 08, 2002
He Said What?
I have never cared for Alan Dershowitz. He seemed, to me at least, just another ambulance chasing type attorney who was willing to hitch his wagon to any case, think OJ, that would provide him with some additional notoriety. This essay, from National Post, causes me to reconsider my animus towards him. It could just be an aberration, but what he says in the essay is undoubtedly true.
And I thought the United States was the leader in frivilous lawsuits, but it appears our abuse of the legal system via lawsuits has exported itself to Canada also. Matt Drudge provides a link to this story from The Globe and Mail that relates the tale of a poor Canadian lad who didn't win the MVP award in his hockey league. Granted the Canadians take their hockey seriously, but this is a bit much. Here's a few words from the boy's father describing the horror,
Croteau said his son was "so hurt and damaged" after losing the awards in front of 250 people that night he came home and shoved his hockey equipment into a corner, saying he had no interest in playing again.
"He was so sure of himself he took $50 of his own money to buy a nice shirt and tie to look good that night," he said. "And he was just humiliated."
I'd encourage the father to keep the boy away from any nearby mosques.
John Venlet - 1:58:00 PM |
Permalink
Arthur Silber provides "A Few Post Election Thoughts" with emphasis on the not so sound defeat of Massachusetts Question 1, the repeal of the state income tax. Here's a short sentence or two that we all should pay close attention to,
"But other than Howell's, no public voice supports Question 1. It is opposed by more or less the whole of the Massachusetts establishment: by Democrat Shannon O'Brien, who warns that it 'goes too far;' by Republican Mitt Romney, who labels it 'too extreme'; by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation (a business lobby, despite its name), which calls it 'the most potentially destructive . . . initiative ever'; by the Boston Herald, which says 'it would be a catastrophe'; by The Boston Globe, which dismisses it as 'pernicious'; and by every elected official on Beacon Hill.
If this doesn't support that theory that both Republicans and Democrats are statists, I don't know what does.
In regards to the defeat of the marijuana initiative in Nevada, Lobowalk has the goods, er, I mean the story.
John Venlet - 8:47:00 AM |
Permalink
The Wonder of It All (Voyeurism)
Michele of No Small Victory and ID provider to the VRWC, wonders at the "Cult of Personality." Specifically, she dissects the public's need for the drivel that is produced by People magazine and the like, the catalyst for this wonder is the Winoa Ryder trial and verdict. Here's a small taste,
We tend to glamorize celebrity criminal behavior (see, O.J.) and romanticize tragedy (see, Lisa Beamer). We make stars out of thugs (see, Eminem) and when any little tidbit about those stars is made public, it is devoured, chewed up and spit out on every talk show in existence. In the blink that occurs when a person moves from small town guy to instant celebrity because of criminal behavior or tragedy or the witnessing of either, doors are opened, vaults are emptied and tomorrow's papers are flush with interviews with his fourth grade teacher, his next door neighbor, his paper delivery boy. By the time the day is over, you know how often he goes to the bathroom. By the time his celebrity status wanes, he has published a biography and hugged Oprah.
Read the rest, and you won't have to wonder any more.
John Venlet - 8:18:00 AM |
Permalink
Wednesday, November 06, 2002
A Good Defense?
It seems that Muhummad the Sniper's attorney is lambasting the government for attempting to use existing extortion laws to try the dirtbag in federal court. Okay. Well at least he hasn't tried to use the it's not my fault defense, yet. You know, the defense where one places the fault for one's actions on poor dental hygiene, absent fathers, late toilet training and the like rather than admitting you're guilty because you're a dumbshit who wants to kill people
John Venlet - 12:30:00 PM |
Permalink
Masturbating for Dollars
Why read analysis after analysis of election results, who voted for who and why and what not when you can read about Romanians masturbating for dollars. Yes, you read that correctly. According to this, from Reuters "Oddly Enough," a certain Romanian automobile factory is in debt over their ears and has determined, from a feasability study, that if 1,000 of the employees contribute their sperm, over several months of course, they should be able to wipe out most of the company's debt. Now that's what I call a novel approach.
John Venlet - 11:25:00 AM |
Permalink
An Election Post
I will not bore you with results or analysis, instead, I will provide you with two links, one that made me laugh and one that pretty much sums up politics. First, the always acerbic Laurence Simon has this to say,
Terry McAuliffe couldn't win an election even if he was Ba'ath Party Chairman in Iraq. Almost spewed on that one.
Second, Billy Beck, at No Treason, has this to say,
I'll tell you something: I have absolutely no confidence in the Republicans' ability or intent to do anything with the power they'll win, in terms important to me.
But that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy the Democrats getting stomped. I would have a damned good laugh if McAuliffe was found floating in the river tomorrow morning after jumping off the 14th Street Bridge, Begala and Carville ended up in a desperate lovers' embrace on a park bench, and Maximum Bill suddenly decided to go the rice & fish-heads route on a grand tour of Asia.
And then, I'd settle in for the nationwide keening from all the shrimps. (Go have a look at Democratic Underground. Those saps are about ready for the Kool-Aid by the tanker truckload.)
I am absolutely rotten. Really: I'm going to hell.
Take Billy's advice and take a spin through the Democratic Underground. Sheesh, what a bunch of crybaby conspiracists.
John Venlet - 10:06:00 AM |
Permalink
Tuesday, November 05, 2002
Unconscious Objector
Dan Medley, over at Lobowalk just posted this story, along with a few well worded comments of his own, from The Salt Lake Tribune. It relates the story of an Army grunt who joined the service for training in electronics and computers, but when fate called upon him to actually support the Army's mission, which is protecting the interests of the United States, decided he was a conscientious objector. This is all well and good, especially since the grunt in question followed the regs in regard to achieving his discharge and repayment of the training fees the Army had invested in him. My problem with this is he was willing to enlist, voluntarily, to learn some skills, but when the stakes are raised, meaning reality calls upon him to perform in possibly more dangerous situations, he bails. As Dan says to the now discharged objector, You are willing to join the Army to take advantage of the benefits. However, you are not willing to defend your country in a time of war. A war which your country did not start. A war in which your country was attacked and thousands of your fellow citizens were killed. Tell me, when you were going through basic training did it not occur to you that "going to war" was a real possibility? In fact, "going to war" is the Army's fundamental purpose. Based on what I've read, it appears that this thought, "going to war," did not occur to the grunt. He mistakenly believed that the Army was "just an adventure" rather than an actual battle ready arm of the United States defense establishment. He must have missed the combat training while going through boot.
John Venlet - 3:35:00 PM |
Permalink
So Sue Me
Diana Mertz Hsieh is being sued by Front Sight Management, unfortunately, the link to the case specifics is very vague, in other words it tells you nothing other than that Diana is being sued by Front Sight Management. It would appear, at least by reading through the thread of events leading to the suit, that this may have something to do with the Church of Scientology. Hmm. Anyway, Diana, although I do not know her personally, is an articulate and intelligent student of philosophy who has previously utilized the services of Front Sight, a weapons training provider, and she has given them high marks for their services. I find it interesting, and somewhat disturbing, that Diana's investigation of Front Sight's, or its staff members, possible affiliation with the Church of Scientology seems to have led to this suit. The link provided in this post to Diana's site will provide you with multiple links to the various emails Diana has exchanged with Front Sight, Ignatiaus Piazza, some info on Scientology and the like. Sounds like someone has their tail in a knot about Diana's truthfulness.
John Venlet - 1:48:00 PM |
Permalink
For the Voters
Tony Woodlief, of Sand in the Gears, graciously provides a voting primer to act, as Tony says, "as a prophylatic of sorts" because "unprotected voting can kill you."
John Venlet - 9:35:00 AM |
Permalink
This Just In
Donald Sensing has posted some comments on reporters on the battlefield and training they may need prior to this privilige being accorded them in response to Bill Quick's protesting, link provided by Don, of the training requirement. I agree with Don's take on this issue, but I like Laurence Simon's ideas for other uses reporters may have in combat situations, which Don also shares with us in his post.
John Venlet - 9:01:00 AM |
Permalink
Monday, November 04, 2002
Too True
Here's a great quote, from Ramesh Ponnuru, over at The Corner on the oft cited New York Times poll and the headline they used when they published their interpretation of the results.
About that New York Times poll released this weekend: It asked voters whether they thought that the Republicans (or the Democrats) "have a clear plan for the country." Maybe it's just me, but I'm just as happy not having either party have "a clear plan for the country." It sounds rather creepy.
Posted by Ramesh at 04:56 PM
John Venlet - 8:04:00 PM |
Permalink
Warning - What You Read May Not Be True
Here's a great use of study dollars. Consumers International, a scary moniker if I ever saw one, cautions internet users that not everything they read may be true. Well, well, well, who would've thought? I wonder if they looked at printed media, with special emphasis on The New York Times. Probably not.
Thanks to Daniel Medley over at Lobowalk for the link. Hopefully he's still not locked away in his bedroom pondering his existence after this earthshattering news.
John Venlet - 7:29:00 PM |
Permalink
Gay Marriage and Faux Sausage
David Carr over at Samizdata has posted an interesting viewpoint on gay rights with special emphais on gay marriage. He even provides an analogy that incorporates "vegetarian sausages." It's a very interesting read with some very good comments and rebuttals of the comments posted in response to what he has written.
John Venlet - 10:18:00 AM |
Permalink
Integrity
Diana Mertz Hsieh has excerpted some portions of The Fountainhead, portions that when I read them over 25 years ago, made my blood boil at the audacity of people who wanted to impose their wills on others for the good of the people. Howard Roark was a hero to me as I came of age, and if it has been some time since you've read the book, go peruse what Diana has excerpted from the book and her brief comments here. It may remind you to keep a firm grasp on your integrity.
John Venlet - 9:40:00 AM |
Permalink
Squandering Opportunity
The people living in the state of Massachusetts have the opportunity to eliminate the state income tax tomorrow. Unfortunately, they will undoubtedly squander it. Misled by both major parties, and others wishing to feed at the teat of the American public, they will foolishly vote to continue to allow their own money to be appropriated and spent by the apparatus of the state. George F. Smith has a more indepth look at this issue here. When will the people learn? Thanks to Billy Beck over at No Treason for providing the link.
John Venlet - 9:19:00 AM |
Permalink
The Mis-Guided Church
Tony, over at Trojan Horseshoes, is fisking his church bulletin, but in an edifying way. Meaning, Tony is telling his church to wake up and recognize separation of church and state. Way to go Tony. What Tony has to say fits very nicely with my comments on the religious right posted below under Slander.
Asparagirl provides an entertaining look at her almost being a juror experience. I'd like to see the murals she mentions in the holding pens.
John Venlet - 7:57:00 AM |
Permalink
Sunday, November 03, 2002
Slander
Previously, Arthur Silber has posted some thoughts on Ann Coulter's recent book Slander. The posts are here here,here,here, and here, and I believe I even have them in the correct order. Arthur's analysis of Slander encouraged me to pick up the book and I would have to agree with Arthur's comments, and if you're wondering what those comments are, hit the links provided.
One portion of the book Arthur was hoping to comment on in the future dealt with the "religious right," an illusionary bogey man often sited by liberals as the bane to people's continued free existence. Arthur was going to focus on philosophic issues that he felt Ann might be missing because of her "beliefs" and I look forward to what he has to say on this. Be that as it may, I wanted to throw a few comments out there on this whole "religious right" issue.
Coming from a very conservative, twice to church on Sunday background, I enjoyed Ann's deconstruction of the whole religious right taking over the United States fallacy. Granted, there are groups of very conservative Christians out there in the world, definitely a minority, and they are entitled to believe as stridently as they desire. Many of lifes pleasures will be verboten to them, and classified as sins, because of their personal interpretation of the Bible, but I doubt very highly that their world view of morality has much of a chance of becoming law. Look around you at all that is available here in the United States, legal prostitution, gambling, alcohol, pornography, an extravgance of foods, almost all of the seven deadly sins are legal. If the religious right is so powerful, as Ann Coulter proves they are not, why do we continue to have access to almost everything we desire?
This does not mean that conservative Christians do not attempt to force their worldview on people, and I use the word force here referring to any attempt to legislate morality. Outlawing anything only drives it under ground, but more importantly, especially for Christians, legislating only forces one person's will on another. I submit that forcing one's will on another is irredeemably against God's plan. God never forced any person, Christian or non-Christian, to do anything. God granted all people free will, free will to believe, free will to dis-believe, free will to act or not act. Attempting to legislate people's lives denies all of us the exercise of our free wills. If a Christian finds some action offensive, all they need to do is not participate in the offensive action. They may criticize what they find objectionable, or encourage people to not participate in what they find offensive, but they cannot legislate it, because when they attempt to legislate morality, they are interfering with the exercise of free will.
People may mock conservative Christian's beliefs, but if they are not forcing their will on people they are probably doing more good than harm. People may find this view simplistic, but why does it need to be complicated? People may point out that Christians will say people who do what they find offensive, and which should thus be legislated, will suffer eternal damnation, and I say judge not lest ye be judged. Now excuse me while I go and work on removing this board from my eye.
John Venlet - 4:27:00 PM |
Permalink
Friday, November 01, 2002
Jury Nullification - YES
Arthur Silber has gathered together a few links and posted a few thoughts of his own on the issue of jury nullification. I won't get into any legal arguments here, Glenn, Arthur and Eugene can cover those angles, but I agree that the jury should have the right to ignore the law as they, the jury, see fit. There's the law and then there is justice, even though one may not support the other. Let the jurors decide.
John Venlet - 1:52:00 PM |
Permalink
I'm a Lumberjeck and I'm Okay
Lobowalk, a blog I was just recently introduced to, has a Earth First!/logging story whose ending caused me to disturb my fellow worker bees with guffaws of laughter.
John Venlet - 8:56:00 AM |
Permalink
Eric Raymond has posted a very thought provoking piece on arming children. Yes, you read that correctly, children. Before you get all namby, pamby and knee jerkingly say no way, read what he has to say. He also, within the post, quotes this from Thomas Jefferson,
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
John Venlet - 8:02:00 AM |
Permalink
Hear Ye, Hear Ye, He Has Nothing to Say
James Lileks has been listening to Mondale on the stump. Unfortunately, Mondale's not saying much, unless the mouthing of the same platitudes the Dems mouth over and over actually mean anything. Where Mondale lacks substance, Lileks provides it.
Update: Here's another link, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan, that has a few things to say about Mondale's senate nomination acceptance speech.
John Venlet - 7:46:00 AM |
Permalink
