Amit Ghate has left a new comment on your post "Client #9 - Busted":

Thanks for the comment Principlex. And while I can certainly sympathize with
your feeling of repulsion towards Spitzer and your disdain of an electorate
that put him in power, I think it's a bit much to equate him to Hitler.
Doing so trivializes the mass murder of 6 million people.

Nonetheless I do agree that when a petty thug like Spitzer can be elected on
a platform which basically amounts to: "The law and due process be damned, I
can and will do anything that I judge to be in the (undefinable) public
interest", we've definitely taken more than a few steps down the road
towards totalitarianism.

Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 5:34 PM

principlex has left a new comment on your post "Client #9 - Busted":

When it finally registered yesterday that Spitzer had been elected governor
in a landslide, I felt like a knife had been thrust into my chest. Hence my
blog comments.
__________

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Spitzer, Hitler - What's the Difference?

Given that Spitzer was a brazen ruthless ruiner of men and was elected to
his office in a landslide, do we now understand how America can elect a
Hitler? And what does this say about the fascist underbelly of the
Democratic Party?

I heard a colleague of his defending all the good things he had done in his
short term as governor, trying to salvage something, anything, of Spitzer
and the Democrats in New York. My ears were in rebellion. I wretched.

This fascist ugliness is just behing the drape in our current political
drama. And this, I say, is the primary lesson in this matter. WAKE UP!

Posted by principlex at 3:42 PM

Posted by principlex to Thrutch at 8:26 AM

Craig J. Bolton has left a new comment on your post "Paul McKeever - Freedom Party of Canada":

There are several good points made by the debaters in this thread, but others that are not so good.

Yes, libertarianism is primary a negative point of view, aimed at exposing the defects and limitations of government. Some persons may reasonably conclude from examining those defects and limitations that a social order without government [anarchy] is a better state of affairs to one with government. Objectivists seem to be unwilling to take that alternative seriously and head on, but, like the Lutheran Church Lady, they just wring their handkercheifs and whine "OWWWW, ANAAAARCY" and then go on to another topic.

Second, yes libertarianism has become a "big tent" movement. In some ways it always was, even when it wasn't libertarianism but was Radical Englightenment or Classical Liberalism. Yes, that is undesirable because it sometimes results in a lack of clarity regarding what libertarians favor and disfavor. In those respects it is much better to have a tightly disciplined cult whose members tow a particular slogan line with rigor. In other respects, however, the cult is not to be favored.

I find it odd for Objectivists to be criticizing libertarians for being unfamiliar with Philosophy. No Objectivist I have ever personally known has ANY training in philosophy, and as far as I know there are less than a hand full of Philosopher Objectivists in the entire world. Now why should that be? Objectivism is objectively [demonstrably] superior to every other philosophic point of view, isn't it? It has been around for about 50 years now. So why the utter lack of Objectivists with rigorous training in philosophy?

As someone with some of that rigorous training [at least to the extent of a B.A. in history of philosophy, philosophy of science and logic], let me suggest an answer. Objectivism is simply a hodgepodge of slogans. It isn't systematic. It isn't a philosphy at all. It is based, if on anything, on silly equivocations ["definition shifting" in your cult language]. So Objectivists really don't want to play this card of systematic philosophic grounding with those who know better.

Posted by Craig J. Bolton to Thrutch at 10:04 AM

Amit Ghate has left a new comment on your post "Protecting Us from Ourselves":

Hi Galileo,

My thoughts on your question run along some of the same lines as your hypotheses; first that education is responsible, though I come at it more from the angle that people in the cities you mention tend to be much more educated than in other places, so they have many more bad ideas than do those with less formal education, not necessarily that some cities have more progressive education than others (though that is probably true too).

Thus, by being productive and successful, the men in the major cities you list could afford to -- and did -- send their kids all the way through graduate school, thinking that this was best for them. But given the ideas they were taught, such an education was actually an attack on all that made it possible, and in this way the producers became promoters of their own undoing.

And not only do their kids have 20+ years of bad ideas thrust on them, in many cases they’ve also been so sheltered that they don’t have any of the real-life experience to untangle the ideas or to see the anti-life consequences of the abominable ideas they’re taught. (This too is similar to a point you make.)

Next, I think that much of regulation is aimed at keeping those in power in power, i.e. of maintaining the status-quo. One of the greatest things about the 19th century is that the expression “shirt-sleeves to shirt-sleeves in 3 generations” was a fact of life. If an heir didn’t measure up, he wasn’t the beneficiary of regulatory power which served to throttle new competitors, while nowadays it’s the reverse (see the Kennedy’s for example). In fact, the original subject of this post illustrates this, i.e. those with sufficient wealth are allowed to invest as they wish (again Ted Kennedy can do what he wants) but those without it are restricted and are thus at a severe disadvantage. This suits the goal of maintaining the status quo and of entrenching social classes -- something which is as anti-American as any policy could be -- yet which is supported by all our intellectuals. A similar case can be made for the income tax; those starting off without any money have to begin by working for income and are heavily taxed, while those that have money and pull can find different ways less subject to taxation and regulation to maintain their wealth. This again has the effect of preserving artificial economic and social strata.

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m obviously not advocating that we tax the rich to remedy this(!), rather that we get rid of all or as many of the taxes and regulations that burden our society as well as the welfare programs they allegedly go to support. The solution isn’t to forcibly create a “level playing field” as the leftists want, but simply to allow everyone the freedom to achieve (and to fail if they make the wrong choices and/or take the wrong actions).

On top of these political issues, there are also more fundamental issues to consider, viz. those which go to the nature of man and his functioning on earth (i.e. of philosophical ideas). For instance, Warren Buffett, who is self-made, extremely knowledgeable about business and as smart as they come, is an advocate of the regulatory state. His position rests on a certain view of man and of reality, so his mind will only be changed by arguing against those more basic premises. (And while I think actual experience in a truly capitalist society would help him accept such arguments by giving him more direct evidence from which he could confirm the principles, it would still be necessary to make the arguments.)

So as much as each political step taken to dismantle the regulatory state is positive and tends to engender further “virtuous circle” effects, there is no way to avoid addressing and refuting the basic philosophical ideas upon which the regulatory and/or mixed economy and/or totalitarian state depends.



Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 5:45 PM

Galileo Blogs has left a new comment on your post "Froth in the Chinese Stock Market":

The froth is evident. My hypothesis is that both the froth and its very likely correction will be largely the result of monetary actions by the Chinese and U.S. governments.*

Rapid growth rates in the money supplies in both China and to a lesser degree in the U.S. have boosted the froth. Now, we see Chinese bank regulators trying to tamp down bank lending and growth in the money supply. They have raised bank reserve requirements several times and have cracked down on bank financing of stock purchases.

If they do this aggressively enough, it will trigger a bank lending contraction, which will drain money from the stock market. Without bank capital backing up the margin purchases, the stock market will contract. Then, as stock prices contract, margin loans will be called, triggering further stock sales. All of this will spill over into the physical economy, causing a recession or slow-down in economic growth, unless the Chinese central bank then turns around and quickly re-inflates the money supply. Of course, that could just stoke inflation.

The Chinese economy, as fast-growing as it is, is still much smaller than the U.S. economy, so I am not sure what it all means for our economy here. However, the U.S. Fed has also been expanding the money supply at a moderately fast rate, and the U.S. Dollar and Chinese Yuan are linked through a semi-fixed exchange rate.

The other factor for the U.S. is the increasingly likely faster revaluation of the Yuan, which is the same thing as a faster devaluation of the dollar (versus the Yuan). Of course, this would be on top of the long ongoing fall in the value of the dollar, which has lost value generally against nearly all world currencies.

All of it is quite interesting. If the U.S. dollar devalues further, it suggests staying long foreign securities versus American securities. Of course, if both the U.S. and Chinese market are likely to pull back, then it is time to get more bearish on equities in general. I invest in U.S.-based utilities primarily, and these stocks had quite a sell-off on Thursday. I'm not sure if the greater risk of a new round of dollar devaluation had anything to do with it.

***

*A qualification on my comment in the first paragraph. Monetary policy undoubtedly has contributed to the froth, but a certain proportion of the Chinese stock market gains has a solid base in genuine, rapid improvement in China's economy. Often, though, this is the pattern of a boom/bust. A legitimate boom caused by a major economic improvement is then artificially stimulated further by overly accommodative monetary policy. Then, central bank officials get nervous about the risk of inflation and artificially curtail the money supply, thereby causing a recession or depression.

Such needlessly exacerbated booms-busts are caused by government manipulation of the money supply, which should be provided only by private banks (and most likely based on gold or some other monetary asset).

I suspect I am preaching to the converted on this issue, though!

Posted by Galileo Blogs to Thrutch at 5:17 AM

Galileo Blogs has left a new comment on your post "Protecting Us from Ourselves":

Thank you for a great article on regulation. I especially liked how you connected all forms of regulation stretching across many areas of life, from investing, to medical practices, etc.

Americans now largely approve of regulation as a general principle. They expect government to regulate in order to "protect" them from risks. An appalling example of it is in New York. New Yorkers have blithely embraced a ban on smoking on private property, such as bars and restaurants, and a ban on the use of trans fats at restaurants.

These outrageous and precedent-setting bans have been rather common in New York's history. For example, the first zoning law to "protect" us from tall buildings was passed here in the early 1900s. I suspect that many other regulations such as building codes, occupational licensing, and multifarious business regulations now common in America began here in New York.

Why is that so? I suspect the answer has something to do with the education of New Yorkers. Many people come here who went to progressive schools where they were indoctrinated with the modern view of the virtue of government regulation of the economy. That is also true of Boston and San Francisco, two other loci of progressive government activity.

My other theory is that because New York is prosperous, the connection between wealth and capitalism has become less obvious to many people. New Yorkers simply see that "the goods are here." Therefore, they do not consider that the goods are here because they were produced using the freedom that still remains in our economy. In New York, the goods have stayed here, despite destructive government policies. Those policies have not yet reached a tipping point where they are obviously destroying the wealth of the city (as they did in the 1970s). Therefore, New Yorkers think that onerous regulation and high taxes can coexist with prosperity. "Somehow" the goods will be here, regardless of what government does to stand in the way of production.

So, oddly enough, New York's very wealth, itself the result of the elements of capitalism that do exist, is a reason why the city's leaders can smugly support the regulations and taxation that will eventually destroy that wealth.

Why do you think the pro-regulation mentality has taken root in America and particularly so in places such as New York, Boston and San Francisco?



Posted by Galileo Blogs to Thrutch at 7:37 PM

Mike N has left a new comment on your post "Crossfit Rest Day Links":

I think the article by Ewe Buse is ok as far as showing the politicization of science where the IPCC is concerned even though I didn't think he went deep enough. I disagree with his description of how meticulous the IPCC is. This may be true of the various ARs but is certainly not true of the SPMs.

And Mr. Buse is wrong when he contends that Richard Lindzen is the only IPCC critic that is that vociferous. There are others equally so. And the idea that Mr. Lindzen's criticisms are just claims is also off the mark. I'v read some of Lindzen's articles and he is not in the habit of making arbitrary claims.

Otherwise, the article does show some politicization of science, more evidence of why science needs to be removed from government.



Posted by Mike N to Thrutch at 12:42 PM

Amit Ghate has left a new comment on your post "Feelings over Facts":

Hi Galileo,

WRT to your first point, I think that when feelings are the standard by which speech is allowed or not, there are only two choices: either silence everyone on any issue which might be controversial, or allow force to determine who can speak and who can't. In practice some of each happen (but always to the detriment of the man of reason who wants to peacefully explore reality without bowing to other men's whims). The sterile politically-correct campuses (ignoring their attacks on capitalism and Western values) are examples of what happens when the former course is chosen, the violent threats and actions of many Muslims and the fear they engender is the result of the latter type of choice.

Your namesake is, of course, a prime example of the type of person who loses in either situation.

Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 3:34 PM

Galileo Blogs has left a new comment on your post "Income Inequality":

Looking at the data in the New York Times article, I see that income inequality peaked in 1928, the year before the stock market crash and the beginning of the Great Depression.

Let's see. The 1920s were a period of rapid increase in wealth, when even the average American could buy cars and radios, and benefit from the rapid deployment of electricity. But rich people got even richer.

Now with the Great Depression, we had mass impoverishment, unemployment approaching 1/4 of the population, soup kitchens, starvation. But there was greater income equality then.

I wonder, what is the true objective of those who protest income inequality?

Posted by Galileo Blogs to Thrutch at 9:22 AM

Amit Ghate has left a new comment on your post "Income Inequality":

Thanks Galileo, that's a great and telling observation...

Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 3:18 PM

Galileo Blogs has left a new comment on your post "Feelings over Facts":

That concretizes the importance of the right of free speech, and the importance of always upholding the truth, period.

Interestingly, the cited article also describes teachers being afraid of Muslim students who express anti-Semitic comments when the Holocaust is taught. It sounds like the teachers are afraid of the little Muhammeds and [insert female Muslim name] in their classrooms. Even little Muslims terrorize, in Western classrooms.

As to restricting speech in order to avoid offending sensibilities, let's add the elimination of references to Japanese World War II atrocities in their classrooms. That has been a story for some time, but the textbook deletions apparently continue.

No younger Japanese alive today is responsible in the slightest degree for what their grandparents did in World War II. Yet some of these younger Japanese and apparently plenty of older Japanese (deservedly so, in some cases) subscribe to a collective or racial theory of guilt. Therefore, they want to change the history books that remind them of what for most of them is truly unearned guilt.

Posted by Galileo Blogs to Thrutch at 9:13 AM

Amit Ghate has left a new comment on your post "Government "Science"":

Hi L.S.

To answer your question, I don’t think we’re at the stage yet where a government agency will come out and overtly say that they are denying funding because of a scientist’s conclusions. However there are many people who say that it is done tacitly, and there definitely are documented cases of the government using its force to change scientific opinions and/or suppress scientists from sharing their objectively reached conclusions. Moreover, I don’t think it’s an accident that most scientists who do speak out loudly against the politically correct “consensus” view are of the emeritus variety, that is their jobs no longer depend of government funding. (It would be awfully coincidental for so many scientists to change their opinions just as they retire, much more likely that they couldn’t freely speak their minds while in the government’s thrall.)

I’m no expert on the field, but here are a few examples of which I’m aware:

Oregon and Delaware want to remove state climatologists for opposing views:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/02/07/political-correctness-for-state-climatologists-in-order-to-force-these-positions-to-embrace-global-warming-as-summarized-by-the-ipcc-%E2%80%93-a-chilling-development/

Also: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003618979_warming15m.html

Richard Lindzen dragged into congressional hearings by Gore and then subject to bogus lawsuits: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

Christopher Horner cites several instances in the “Consensus Lie” chapter of his book “The Politically Correct Guide to Global Warming”. First Gore smears Singer in the Revelle affair. Full story said to be available in Politicizing Science (though I haven’t received my copy yet so I can’t confirm personally). Second, Gore as VP chased Dr. William Happer out of the US Dept. of Energy because his views didn’t fit Gore’s alarmism. Happer remarked at the time: “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy”.

Here’s a link to the Politicizing Science book which should have much more info:

http://www.amazon.com/Politicizing-Science-Policymaking-Michael-Gough/dp/0817939326/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3997026-1163303?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174256792&sr=8-1

Richard Lindzen claims that funds disappear for dissenters, see e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

Art De Vany (former UCI prof.) has commented that he’s heard the same.

I’ll blog other examples as I run into them, but I hope that’s of some help for now.

Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 9:03 PM

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Government "Science"":

I'm glad someone posted this cartoon, because I wanted to comment on it, and C&F don't permit comments.

I have a simple question: is there actually evidence that any scientist has been denied funds for opposing man-made global warming? Perhaps there is, I just haven't heart it.

NS



Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 11:18 AM

Amit Ghate has left a new comment on your post "Sarbanes Oxley Continues to Take its Toll on the G...":

Yes, there's definitely been a huge move towards going private (see the surge in private equity funds), as well as of delisting to avoid the onerous regulations imposed by our bureaucrats. And of companies who do wish to become public, more and more of them are choosing to do so in London or Tokyo rather than in NY.

As I've mentioned before, every investor always had the choice to NOT invest in a company if he was unsure about its financials, reputation, etc. but now he no longer has that choice as the companies have left the public marketplace altogether. (In general I think it's fair to say that preventative/regulatory law always leads to a shrinking of an honest person's possible sphere of action.)

Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 7:33 PM

 

 softwareNerd has left a new comment on your post "Sarbanes Oxley Continues to Take its Toll on the G...":

All this regulation creates incentives for companies to "go private". This is a parallel to "smart money" moving out of mutual funds, to lighter regulated hedge funds.



Posted by softwareNerd to Thrutch at 8:32 AM

 

XWL has left a new comment on your post "Gore's Wet Dream":

I can't believe you linked this piece, what's "pro-reason, pro-egoism, or pro-capitalist" about that disgusting post.

Oh wait, that's my post . . ., nevermind.

Thanks for the link.

(But no thank you for the image of Vice-President Gore 'getting his jollies' that's rolling around my brain right now)



Posted by XWL to Thrutch at 4:32 PM

This would indeed be a worthwhile project (activism to encourage the US to leave the UN). Just getting to the point where this can be seriously discussed as a reasonable position would be an achievement. Of course, we presently stay in the UN because all our intellectual presently think it's a good thing. As usual the solution lies with New Intellectuals who would advocate a more rational position.

--
Posted by Gideon to Thrutch at 7/28/2006 12:13:50 PM

An interesting quote by Churchill:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

--
Posted by Jeff to Thrutch at 7/24/2006 02:05:40 PM

Hi Janet,

Isaac Schrodinger has compiled links to the various photo galleries here.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 7/23/2006 09:42:27 AM

LGF has a gallery of pictures from pro-Hezbollah rallies in cities from Sweden to Australia, with examples from the major US cities, of course. I've never seen such confidence displayed by protestors before. They are shockingly blatant about taking over the world. If anyone has harbored the least doubt about the ultimate goal of Islam, this series of pictures ought to blast it to pieces. If anyone doubts that Hezbollah, and every other incarnation of Islamic totalitarians, is a part of the civilian population, take a look at the civilian population that supports them.

--
Posted by Janet Busch to Thrutch at 7/23/2006 02:38:29 AM

Hi Harry,

Thanks for the comment. I agree with the sentiment expressed by your Coventry example, though after researching it a bit, I came to the conclusion that the story itself is "urban legend" and didn't happen the way you were taught. See for instance message 1 from this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/38/a3142838.shtml Nonetheless the principle is valid and is similar to the choice Bush was faced with when, on 9/11, he ordered that any more hijacked planes flying toward buildings be shot down despite the resulting death of innocent passengers.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 7/11/2006 12:19:46 PM

Amit, thank you for your so so intelligent piece of "western style" reasoning. If our governments could adopt your policies then we could all start feeling free again. Weakness and virtue are not the same. I learned at school what happens to people who don't stand up to bullies. If we invade another country i will cry for the innocent as much as anyone, I'm sure that many Germans were killed in WW2 who weren't nazi's and my heart bleads for them but sometimes you face a decision for the greater good. Winston Churchill once had informatiion that the city of Coventry would be bombed,but evacuating it wouuld have given away his ability to crack codes and would have ultimately have lead to more deaths. he agonised, but let the people of coventry be bombed in order to save more lives. people today have lost that clarity and just want to take the easy way out, as demanded by 60 miutes etc. i will send this article to any one with influence that i know. thank you again
HArry
Ps anyone interested in this check out http://www.annaqed.com/english/under/contents.html

--
Posted by harry to Thrutch at 7/11/2006 04:54:41 AM

Hi One Man Laughing,

I agree that a precondition to being moral is knowledge and awareness that it is possible, and women in the darkest corners of the Middle East may be kept in such ignorance that they can be held relatively blameless. But many of the cases that I cited occur in the West, some from women who have become much more Islamic than their parents (the Canadian case is striking in that regard.) I don’t think you can argue that they weren’t aware of other choices, nor that they were coerced into taking the actions they did. Instead I think you have to say that as soon as someone takes the ideology of Islam seriously, then dire consequences ensue. That is why the battle must be fought primarily on the ideological level, and why it will be impossible to win the so-called “war on terror” if we do not name the ideology animating our enemies (much less go out of our way to assure everyone that it is a “great religion of peace”).

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 7/06/2006 03:46:33 PM

For these women to act differently, I think they would need to be aware that it is possible to do so, and that it is morally preferable to do so.  I don't mean to make them sound like innocent victims, but the joy of the west is that it is easy to be good -- that the system allows people to be moral.  For these women to be moral (I almost slipped and typed "to be what we consider moral"), they would have to be able to be moral without being beaten, they would have to have others around them who expect moral behavior.

You can take a work environment, and under a particular boss and system, the workers will be rude, gossiply, and unproductive -- but if you change the boss and system, well, need I say more?

You mention Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan, the former whom I greatly esteem, and the latter less so merely because my only knowledge of her comes from that video that was on LGF.  But, Hirsi Ali "stood up to her society" in Holland, and Wafa Sultan, I believe, lives in America.  I mean, come on: any woman who stands up to her society while in the society would escape being beaten into submission or paradise by quite a fluke -- I couldn't name one such woman, not that I'm an expert at all!

I completely agree with you here: "Thus I see little reason to feel optimistic about the likelihood of change coming from within the Muslim world (particularly given that an essential part of the Muslim faith explicitly condones the use of violence to suppress and eradicate any intellectual dissent)."

--
Posted by One Man Laughing to Thrutch at 7/01/2006 06:43:38 PM

Women teach their sons the same ideology as their father do, and send them off to war.

--
Posted by softwareNerd to Thrutch at 6/29/2006 09:38:54 PM

Dr. Hurd makes a similar point in a slightly different context:

http://drhurd.com/index.php?subaction=
showfull&id=1151253120&archive
=&start_from=&ucat=1&

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 6/25/2006 07:17:13 PM

How true this is. Even here, among my friends in India, its hard to convince them that the US is infact not the "bad" guy or the "bully" that they view it as. It's hard and seems futile, however. It's all a result of corrupt premises and contradictions... religious and collectivist.

--
Posted by Ergo to Thrutch at 6/18/2006 11:11:12 AM

I know this has ALMOST nothing to do with this story but I remmeber a while back that you pointed out that some Libertarians pointed out Somalia as a success story for anarchy.

Well here is a story you might find interesting.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/somalia/articles/20060601.aspx

" The bottom line is that life is easier in an area controlled by an Islamic Courts militia. For that reason, the growing number of successful businessmen in Somalia, have hooked up with an Islamic Courts militia for protection (for which they pay). At least with the Islamic Courts, when a businessman pays, he is more likely to get what he paid for. On the down side, the Islamic Courts back Islamic terrorism, al Qaeda and restrictive Islamic customs."

By the way,you can get a lot of information about what is happening now in somalia on this site.

--
Posted by Apollo to Thrutch at 6/01/2006 10:02:19 AM

Hi D.

I agree completely with your comment. In fact, after I made the post (but was no longer at my computer) I realized I should edit it to say simply that the video is a good example of how cliches are empty. Carlin obviously isn't advancing any argument, so there is no fallacy involved in the video itself.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 5/29/2006 10:20:56 AM

Found the story in several media. Turns out I just missed it. By the way, the newspaper "Die Welt" was one of the newspapers that printed the Mohammed cartoons (http://www.welt.de/data/2006/02/01/839667.html). A Muslim living in Germany did not seem to like this and attempted to murder the newspaper's editor-in-chief. Fortunately, he was arrested and the editor was unharmed. Bad as it is, I think the former story, while the form of killing is reminiscent of Islamic terrorism, has less to do with Islamism in Germany than the latter story. The beheader has been in therapy for several years due to his psychosis.

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 5/29/2006 07:04:38 AM

Regarding my previous comment: I checked the source, it's the German newspaper "Die Welt" which I consider a reliable source of information. I find it absolutely astonishing that I did not hear about this incident. Thank you for linking to the story.

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 5/28/2006 12:43:13 PM

Are you sure that this beheading actually took place? Since I live in Germany and haven't heard or read anything about it and since the weather as reported in the story does not match what I believe the current weather in Hamburg is, I think it could be a wrong story. Not that this story seems implausible...

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 5/28/2006 12:35:40 PM

But is Carlin really saying anything? He is taking a bunch of concepts which are appropriate in certain contexts and making them into a word sallad. It seems nihilistic to me.

D. Eastbrook

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 5/28/2006 08:37:24 PM

I don't know how reliable this site is, but it has an interview (in German) of the event: http://www3.ndr.de/ndrtv_pages_video/0,,OID2410464_VID2414380_TYPreal_LOCint,00.html

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 5/28/2006 03:09:19 PM

So! You are one of those, like the rest of us, who suffers from bloggus interruptus because life keeps interfering. Condolences. Rest well, if you can.

--
Posted by George Mason (PBUH) to Thrutch at 5/11/2006 11:26:07 AM

There is even more corruption there than you think. Someone who testifies the "wrong" way can find himself under the magnifying glass next.

Worse still, the system has its Orren Boyle's, with their paid government agents.

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 5/03/2006 01:47:20 PM

well, yes, as weird as it may sound, I am saying that. Just look at what happened in the past, it happened before and if we make the same mistakes it'll happen again.

--
Posted by Will A. to Thrutch at 5/01/2006 12:17:17 PM

I agree with Holleran. The "M" word was nowhere to be found. That would be like making a film about Nazi attrocities and never identifying the Nazis as ... Nazis.

D. Eastbrook

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 4/30/2006 03:14:20 PM

Check out Scott Holleran's review of United 93 at Box Office Mojo:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=2056&p=.htm

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 4/30/2006 06:55:21 AM

I read that. It was, like, you know, dude, it was scary. We counted on these people to, like, you know, just stand there in awe of our chains. You know.

Not a clue among the whole bunch.

This reminds of a story from England about traders and Kyoto freaks who tried to stop trading on the floor. Seems those usually polite traders weren't so polite to the shocked trespassers and saboteurs.

That provided a good laugh as well.

Janet Busch

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 4/30/2006 12:56:58 AM

You will be relieved to know that United 93 makes the specific point that the passengers knew they were destined to die and acted in the only way that might save themselves in the process.

--
Posted by Ayatollah Ghilmeini to Thrutch at 4/29/2006 07:28:51 PM

When I was a child, I heard a comment that stayed with me: The safest place to hide is in a crowd. That goes along with the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. Both, to differing extents, address the meaning of evasion. Islamists have never been either covert or subtle, ever, in their entire history. People who should know better in the West over the past several hundred years have seen Islam for what it is and have done this kabuki dance of evasion, as though by not identifying the nature of Islam, it would not be Islam. Thus, these truly evil people in NYC strut their stuff before legions of disinterested and selectively unconscious Americans. This Islamic Thinkers group is reminiscent of SNCC, Black Panthers, etc. of a few decades ago--people in responsible positions all ran for the sandbox to stick their heads in. Those groups morphed into the current nasty black activists, including Nation of Islam.

But, take hope. They think they are King Kongs and can get away with anything because they have the local, state, and federal authorities backing THEM up, not us, and they think they have all of us cowed. Bad miscalculation: resistance is not futile (thanks to Star Trek for the expression). In the recent past, for example, CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations) has lost big time legally, several times now. People stood up to them,and justice prevailed.

We have to let these Islamics know that we are mad as hell and won't take it anymore (thanks to movie Network for the line). These are bullies. When they encounter resistance, they increase their force. When the force of resistance increases, they begin their retreat.

--
Posted by George Mason (PBUH) to Thrutch at 4/29/2006 10:30:49 AM

Republicans are Democrats in drag.

The clearest example I have seen in a long time came from this so-called "universal health insurance" law in Massachusetts. Republican governor Romney bragged all over the airwaves that this act, his bill, was a classic. And, indeed it was. It was Democrat principles implemented through a Republican filter. The thing he liked about this "Republican filter" the most was that it "reformed the market."

In a mixed economy, such as we still have at present, all the varieties of socialism run together. This makes it hard to call one item, say, communist, another, say, social democrat, yet another, say, fascist. And so on. It reminds me of going into a saloon, with bottle after bottle lined up in front the mirror behind the bartender. When he asks, What'll you have, you really have a quandry. Every liquid in every bottle is poisonous, although each acts in minor ways differently from its neighboring liquids. The answer is "None," followed by a quick trip down the street to get a big dose of capitalism.

We already know Democrats so really do not have to discuss them. We need to rip the masks off the Republicans.

Fire them all.

--
Posted by George Mason (PBUH) to Thrutch at 4/29/2006 10:12:41 AM

They have effectively shut down any attempt to speak out against them, so they feel perfectly safe and are emboldened to be honest. It is past time to replace the fear of Allah with a more healthy fear of the USofA.

Janet Busch

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 4/22/2006 12:33:44 AM

Hi Gideon,

Thanks for your comment and the link. I particularly like Locke's quote at the end of your post.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 4/18/2006 03:37:40 PM

It seems that VDH has a rather confused view of reason as Platonic contemplation and discussion, the opposite of forceful action. Once again we see the limitations of Conservatives. I have commented on this on my blog a while back.

--
Posted by Gideon to Thrutch at 4/18/2006 11:22:01 AM

Thanks Jason,

I wasn't aware of VDH's book, but your comments re unearned guilt make perfect sense to me.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 4/17/2006 12:31:56 PM

That’s a good point and Hanson has been saying this for some time going back at least to the publication of his book Carnage and Culture. If the title isn’t a hint, the “editorial reviews” spell it out. The impression that I’m left with (from reading the book years back) is that he accepts the necessity (or the prudence) for the need to fight with all one’s might but also accepts an unearned guilt. Still, if one can ignore his judgment he still argues with extensive historical reference that it is a free society that produces both the will to fight and the means to fight that provide the decisive edge.

However, I suggest that an unearned guilt, if widely accepted, will demoralize and undermine that will. Speaking of unearned guilt, this also reminds me of Paul Johnson’s lament (in Modern Times) that the British people accepted the “utilitarian” policy of bombing German territory including the near certain if not deliberate killing of civilians.

--
Posted by Jason_Pappas to Thrutch at 4/17/2006 12:21:38 PM

You mean the destruction of a Government, which has brought their people under an absolute despotism, and the death of a tyrant will make the freedom loving Iranian youths hate us? WHAT????

--
Posted by Jeff Luebcke to Thrutch at 4/16/2006 01:41:58 PM

Amit,

I really like the "roach motel" analogy!

Gus

--
Posted by Gus Van Horn to Thrutch at 4/13/2006 11:01:04 PM

Hi Richard,

Thanks for the comment (and sorry for taking so long to respond). Believe it or not, originally I had started that paragraph with "Probably not of interest to most here...", but then I thought it was a bit too lame to actually say. Instead I tried to indicate that the post was revealing of the mentality of Objectivists' critics (or at least one brand of them), and I think that even your comment suggests that it did indeed fulfill that purpose.

Nonetheless I agree that that post was a bit of a departure from the typical Thrutch subject matter, as I have tried to position Thrutch to deal with issues of a more general nature, and will continue to do so in the future.

As to your comment about Mike and Diana, I have to disagree, I think it is a value to confront those who make wild claims and show how ridiculous they truly are. This is a benefit to the new reader or the genuinely confused, and I think by the comments of others on that thread, that purpose was served.


Obviously it's not necessary to do it over and over, but I don't think that's been the case, and from here on out people can link to that thread to see the typical Objectivist basher's claims for what they are-- baseless drivel.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 4/12/2006 11:53:48 AM

Thanks for the comments and links zama and Janet; I hadn't spent much time on either of the sites you mention but will make a point to do so soon.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 4/12/2006 07:40:33 AM

I concur. I've been a long time LGF reader. I quit commenting a long time ago, however, when a bunch of racists and/or religionists sort of took over.
Johnson has done a good job of keeping up with what is happening and his readership represents hundreds of dedicated extra eyes and ears for him.

I like to keep up with MEMRI, as well. LGF links to the most interesting translations, but I like to check it for myself. It is fascinating - and eye opening - to see what is being said in Arabic out of one side of someone's mouth, and compare it to what is being said in English out of the other side.

Janet Busch

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 4/12/2006 02:36:13 AM

I'd have to agree. Most of the Islam exposing sites are either pro-Christianity or Christianity appeasing as well. I see alot of the sentiment: "Islam is not a true religion of love and peace but Christianity is". This hardly helps the problem.

Also I see that many secular exposers of Islam a very eager to make "allies" with Christians. Jason Papas' site Liberty and Culture comes to mind. He does a good job of showing the true nature of Islam but never goes the extra mile by connecting it to the problems with faith itself ala Ayn Rand in "Faith and Force" for fear of offending his religous viewers. He even rationalizes it:

http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2006/03/two-methods-of-attack.html

There are many sites like that. Its like the David Kelly approach of trying to make friends by conveniently ommitting the religious nature of your newfound allies.

But your right. Everyone should read LGF to keep up with both the Islamic assault on the West and the post-modernists capitulation to it.

BTW, here is anothe good aggregate site:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

--
Posted by zama202 to Thrutch at 4/11/2006 05:44:29 PM

Hersh is wrong. There are no current plans to have an air strike against Iran.

http://charlottecapitalist.blogspot.com/2006/04/no-attack-on-iran-by-airstrike.html

Andy Clarkson

--
Posted by Andy to Thrutch at 4/10/2006 04:30:07 PM

Before anyone thinks I am an anti-American, defeatist bastard, I'll tell you that I am a capitalist, pro-reason kind-of guy. But heres how it is... there is no better unifying factor for a country than when another invades it. We invade or even just bombard Iran, we will lose, we are already spread thin because of Iraq and partly because of Afghanistan; invading Iran would be suicide. On the other hand, without an invasion, Iran is not unified, the educated youth, a.k.a. the future leaders of Iran see the evils of its present dictatorship and everyone survives. We threw out the dictatorship in Iran years ago, and look where we are now. Lets not do the same thing again. I know I might sound like one of those squeamish spoiled little brats who keep saying 'just listen to them, give them what they want, were the evil ones'. No, were not the evil ones, but lets not make our own situation worse than it already is.

--
Posted by Will A. to Thrutch at 4/10/2006 03:16:30 PM

The guys in Iran seem to be preparing.

--
Posted by softwareNerd to Thrutch at 4/09/2006 09:10:49 PM

Who gives a rat's ass about 'saving Iran'? This is about saving our own asses from nuclear IEDs and worse.

--
Posted by The Anti-Jihadist to Thrutch at 4/09/2006 05:57:51 AM

I was disappointed you (Thrutch) directed us to the R. Campbell Mazzo thread.

The whole debate, from its starting point (Ayn Rand's issues with Evolution), was a dog's breakfast of speculation, knee jerk reaction to non-essentials and abundant mis-use of concepts (e.g. "instinct" is an anti-concept). There were some interesting points among the mess, but not enough to warrant the patience it took to get to them.

It's beyond me why people spend time responding to the nonsense of such as Robert Campbell. Their rationalism and crude manner are too common on Objectivist blog/discussion sites. The best solution is to ignore them and the sites that give them a voice.

Mazzo, and Hsieh, surely have smarter and happier things to do. I know I do, which is why I generally come to Thrutch. I'm afraid that link was a let down.

--
Posted by Richard Bramwell to Thrutch at 4/08/2006 07:58:33 AM

The fact is that either we choose to allow the Islamic Republic of Iran to develop the nuclear system that would allow for nuclear weapons or we don't. Bring on the apocalyptic rhetoric.

--
Posted by JasonSpalding to Thrutch at 4/08/2006 09:28:47 PM

Whatever the truth or falsity of the story or claim, the police have priorities and I believe you can get a quicker response by what you say. If you want them to come, motivate them.

--
Posted by Jack Crawford to Thrutch at 4/06/2006 05:58:36 AM

No matter how convoluted and obfuscatory the questions and the "studies," the solution is always the same: CAPITALISM.

--
Posted by George Mason (PBUH) to Thrutch at 4/05/2006 08:31:54 AM

Thanks for an excellent blog!

Your link to Blair on "How to Call the Police" was certainly made in good faith, but Blair may not have done his homework. Snopes (urban legend tracker) states that the story is not true, but their methodology can be confusing.

Each explanation at www.snopes.com begins with a Claim statement. They then assign the Claim statement a true or false Status. Then a sample story is presented with a detailed explanation.

In this case their Status assignment was "True, and was followed by the sample that Blair quoted. However, the detailed explanation demonstrated that the sample story was false!

I learned that it is the *Claim* to which they assign a Truth Status, NOT the story. Their approach, rationalized in their FAQs, is that the Claim and Status statements are about the general *kind of* story, and not about the example. Unfortunately this readily leads one to believe a particular story is true, when it is not. These ought to form two types of legends -distinguishing the True and False types. Each could then have accurate examples of each.

--
Posted by Richard Bramwell to Thrutch at 4/03/2006 08:24:19 AM

Thanks Richard, I hadn't ever really looked at the snopes site in any detail, and wasn't aware of the distinction you point out.

I don't normally blog on this type of item, but just thought it was amusing when I saw it on Blair's site.

Generally the point you make is very important though, as overall I've realized that I'm too quick to believe what I see on other blogs and will have to do more source checking in the future. So thanks again for commenting.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 4/03/2006 08:38:34 AM

It's refreshing to see it stated so explicitly.

--
Posted by Brian Most to Thrutch at 4/02/2006 10:42:51 AM

Nice. I agree with the sentiment.

I really wish everyone could state, clearly and without a "don't want to offend" excuse, that they're too scared. Even something like this would be acceptable.

We think the cartoons are in bad taste. However, even if we did, we would be too scared to publish them. We fear violence from those who do not respect free speech.

--
Posted by softwareNerd to Thrutch at 3/31/2006 06:53:59 PM

"Daniel, the event was the Unveiling of the Cartoons, I don't see how that could be done without unveiling the cartoons"

Au contraire. By not unveiling the cartoons the NYU administration indeed unveiled the cartoon of selective moral cowardice. Perhaps they should have *unveiled* anti-Christian or anti-Jewish art that NYU has exhibited in the past. Then not only would their cowardice be caricatured by the blank easels, but their hypocrisy from the NYU sanctioned "heresies" of which they approve.

--
Posted by Bill to Thrutch at 3/31/2006 08:08:08 AM

Daniel, the event was the Unveiling of the Cartoons, I don't see how that could be done without unveiling the cartoons. For reference see: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12025

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 3/30/2006 08:53:54 PM

I agreed with your analysis and then I read this at Bidinotto's blog:

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=366&entryid=366

If you read all his updates and his comments, he makes a pretty good case that this is more like Yahoo or Google in China than the Phoenix case.

G. Davis

--
Posted by Anonymous to Thrutch at 3/30/2006 08:42:45 PM

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. If I had to argue NYU's case, I would say that showing the cartoons was not part of the intellectual content of this event and that the actual discussion was not interfered with. I think they would be wrong, though, for the same reason that it would be wrong to demand that an art history professor teach without showing slides of paintings. In general, source material IS part of the intellectual content of a presentation.

--
Posted by Daniel to Thrutch at 3/30/2006 08:41:43 PM

Daniel, I replied as a separate post, you can find it here: http://amitghate.blogspot.com/2006/03/reconciling-nyu-and-borders.html

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 3/30/2006 07:51:27 PM

Oh, I love the bit where they are concerned because the anglo-saxon newspapers are denigrating their image. If these people ever figured out the difference between image and reality, they might actually get somewhere.

France, the "good" socialists. Funny how their economy doesn't work any better than the Soviet's did. Funny haha, not funny odd.

oldsalt

--
Posted by to Thrutch at 3/30/2006 01:57:57 PM

I'm curious, why is it reasonable for Borders to do this but unreasonable for NYU to bar the Objectivist Club from showing the cartoons at a public event?

I suppose you might argue that the actual (as opposed to the pretended) motivation is different in the two cases, but if so, I don't think the difference in motivation is obvious.

--
Posted by Daniel to Thrutch at 3/30/2006 01:29:59 PM

Hi Daniel,

That's a good question and one I even considered addressing in the post. I have to run right now, but I will put up a response either tonight or tomorrow by mid-day. Please check back.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 3/30/2006 01:51:31 PM

I'm at a bit of a loss here. The goal isn't to "tick off" anyone, it's to defend ourselves from a vicious enemy, viz. militant Islam. Understanding the nature of that enemy is one of the key elements in defeating it, which is why I posted the information.

--
Posted by Amit Ghate to Thrutch at 3/27/2006 01:45:35 PM

I’ve heard from a Turk that the best way to tick of a muslim is to call them a “Mohommedan”. I’m not going to test this assertion directly, but some people are asking for it.

--
Posted by David, The Machine to Thrutch at 3/27/2006 01:38:57 PM