Words by Woods

Yesterday, Michael Vick plead guilty to federal charges related to dog fighting.

I remain convinced that the criminal prosecution of Vick was an injustice, because he violated the rights of no one. Instead this is a case where the fiction of animal rights is used to negate actual individual human rights.

Several weeks ago I made a two part video explaining why the federal prosecutors are wrong, while the NFL, Nike, and others are correct.

Links to “In Defense of Michael Vick”

Part 1 Part 2

In the bad old days of communist Russia (perhaps today as well), Russians reading their media news sources had to learn to read between the lines to figure out what was really happening.

While current American media news sources are free from government coercion (at least until the Democrats can change that condition), there exists a self-imposed ideological blank-out in the news.

Recently, I was explaining on-line to someone in South Korea that Americans from experience are aware that educated Muslims who self-identify as being Muslims before being Americans are too frequently the supporters of terrorism and potentially actors in terrorist violence. While this is true, I was momentarily struck by the realization that this is not what the media reports but that these facts are understood by what the media omits from its reporting.

A classic example of this in a non-terrorism related crime story would be the police searching for a rape suspect who is black, but the local media does not report this identifying characteristic. Thus, when the media failed to report the race of a rape suspect, it is understood by viewers that the suspect was black because that was the only time they would make such an omission.

Currently, in the case of an apparently random act of violence, the media omits or de-emphasizes reporting names, ethnicity, and religious affiliations when the suspect is Muslim. In a time when we are at war with Islamic extremists and al-Qaeda is becoming increasingly influential as a loosely affiliated network inspiring others to commit random acts of violence, such Islamic characteristics by suspects in violent crime is essential to an objective report of the incident.

If I were a Muslim, I would find such blank-out reporting of relevant facts offensive and dangerous on two levels. First, as I parent, I need to know how to protect my children from coming under the influence of these types of extremists, so I need to know as much about them as possible. Second, by failing to expose to the public the differentiating criteria between these Islamic extremists and regular every day Muslims in America who are our friends, neighbors, and co-workers, the media distributes ignorance instead of practical information relevant to our lives.

In America, this phenomenon of reading between the lines of news reporting is not limited to these cases but is a more general condition that is not a new problem. However, it is important to recognize it as this flaw contributes to many avoidable missteps in public policy issues.

Perhaps, one day a smart business executive at one of the media organizations will recognize that they are marketing a defective product that is costing their business market share. In the meantime, as consumers of news, we will need to remain focused on objective principles and observation of reality as tools to help us read between the lines of the latest news report.  

While hauling a load back from Williamsburg, the other night on C-SPAN radio I was listening to an interview of President Nixon. During the interview, he was asked several questions about President Johnson.

In discussing LBJ’s use of poor grammar, Nixon said that LBJ knew better but he was tweaking the nose of the Eastern elites by sounding so ignorant. It wasn’t just LBJ as Nixon recounted a story of a Indiana Senator doing a similar faux dialect for the same effect.

This got me thinking about Bushisms, his crimes against the English language. No doubt, in regard to his application of faith to his professional life, President Bush is a complete idiot. However, in his mispronunciations, is he repeating the pattern of his fellow Texan and tweaking the Eastern establishment?

He either is really that ignorant (which is inconsistent with his other speaking), or he is a panderer to hokum that demeans the Presidency. Either way, we should select a better individual in 2008.

Diana Hsieh at NoodleFood has started a mailing list for Objectivist bloggers to facilitate communication and share blogging tips/news. 

She has some good blogging tips available in an old NoodleFood entry.

Below is a list of new blogs I plan to check out.

• CORGIGUY
• Damon Payne
• The Edge of Reason
• Non-Trivial Pursuit
• Not PC
• Rational Jenn
• Semper Vigilo
• Trey Givens

As broadcast by Prodos, Finnish authorities have summoned Mikko Ellila to an interrogation over the content of his blog.  They suspect him of having committed a thought crime. 

Ellila reports that the police have targeted him because of what they call “…the anti-Muslim, pro-Israeli, pro-European, pro-American posts in [his] blog…[he is] suspected of ‘hate speech‘ merely because [he has] pointed out that Islam is a fascist ideology that advocates killing Jews, atheists, homosexuals etc.”

This case demonstrates that in so called “hate speech” laws that the hatred originates from the advocates of such laws against free speech.  As Ayn Rand has observed “…evil ideas are dangerous only by default of men advocating better ideas.” [1] 

As advertised, these laws are to restrict false and potentially dangerous speech such as anti-Semitism by neo-Nazis.  However, the recourse to such laws, instead of verbal refutation, indicts the advocates of such restrictions and the legislators who authorize such a gross violation of the right to free speech.  Note, as they expropriate the government’s monopoly on force in this area and advocate the violation of individual rights by government in general, they in fact share fundamental premises with the ‘haters’ these laws supposedly target, thus they are unable to advocate better ideas but only different versions of the same bad ideas.

In contrast, without recourse to force, Ellila actually attempted to refute a dangerous anti-life ideology (Islam) by advocating better ideas.  While Ellila correctly identifies that Islam advocates the killing of Jews, atheists, homosexuals, etc., he is being prosecuted for publicly distributing statements or information that threatens or abuses some national, racial, ethnic or religious group or group of people. [2]  Ironically, he is to be persecuted for peacefully and reasonably identifying those who violate that same law with impunity.

Several individuals have noted that this intimidation by Finnish police is unlikely to result in a conviction.  Ellila has been defiant so he is unlikely to stop.  The host of the blog, with its server located in the US (a free speech zone), has colorfully stated that he will not cave to a request to quash this content.  In the end, this amounts to Muslims co-opting local officials to intimidate their critics through non-objective law, such as ’hate crime’ statutes.  However, not for the purpose of protecting individual rights, but to wield force against non-believers. 

As a matter of correct governmental policy, Muslims enjoy a freedom of belief immune from governmental restraint so long as they do not act to violate the rights of others.  In the realm of public discourse, Islam has no and should have no protection from reasonable analysis and criticism by private individuals.  Muslims appeal to ’hate speech’ laws because they know that their ideology is unable to hold up against reasonable scrutiny.      

This persecution of Ellila demonstrates that this police action is unjust, that all ’hate speech’ laws and regulations should be repealed, and that more reasonable criticism of Islam by private individuals in the public square is needed.

Update 5/6/2007:  Prodos has posted an update on the specific charges against Mikko Elilla as well as a translation of his offending post. 

Elilla, without having received specifics of the charges against him from police officials, completely mischaracterized what he had written. Having read a translation of the cited post, it racism makes me ill.  While it may be a youthful indiscretion, the ideas are evil.  His analysis focuses on a non-essential attribute to analyze a serious public policy issue.

On a personal level, he has wrongly insulted my friends, my family, my children, and others that I love.  If this was a mistake, Elilla owes not only a retraction but a contrite apology for this words.  If he stands by his words, I condemn him as morally corrupt just as I do W.E.B. DuBois, and for the same reason.

However, the Finnish government is still wrong to prosecute him in violation of his right to free speech.  My earlier point holds true that because of the collectivism advocated by the Finnish government and leading political parties they are not capable of reasonably refuting collectivist arguments like Elilla’s or those by Muslims. 

Elilla’s evil words should be dealt with by reasoned arguments by reasonable individuals in a forum free from coercion.  Elilla should have the opportunity to consider such arguments and perhaps he if so chooses correct his ill-formed opinion.  I would hope that all the bloggers who have taken the time to defend Elilla’s right to free speech could take some time to condemn what he said as well.

While Prodos has pledged to protect Elilla’s speech from official sanction my pulling down his blog, I think that it would be reasonable for Prodos to do so of his own accord as the collectivism articulated by Elilla violates the spirit of the Bernstein Declaration.  

[1] A. Rand, The Objectivist Calendar, June 1978.  
[2] Language of law based on translation by Vasarahammer via Gates of Vienna.    

Extra Points

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna lists recommended next steps and contact information for the Finnish government if you would like to express yourself on this issue.

If you refuse to submit to Islam, get the T-shirt. 

Image Source:  SpreadShirt.com

Many Christians have been complaining about the multiculturalist crowd being offended at people making fun of Muslims but not when people make fun of Christians.

Most importantly, every adult that talks to their imaginary friends are either a prime candidate to be the object of humor, or institutionalized if they are a direct physical danger to themselves or others.   This includes Muslims, Christians, and all other devoted followers of the Invisible Sky Daddy.  Fortunately, it generally isn’t necessary to make the effort to make up jokes about them as they do that themselves when they open their mouths.

One good self-interested reason not to make fun of Muslims is that members in good standing of that faith have been seriously deadly in the name of that faith not only recently but for more than a thousand years.  Truly, the vast majority of Muslims are not personally violent, even if in many cases they do morally, spiritually, and financially support violence by other Muslims against innocent individuals. 

Instead of protesting in the face of religiously inspired murders that Islam is non-violent, how about peaceful Muslims do something useful?  At next Friday prayers, maybe all the moderate peaceful Muslims who actually exist could take the violent jihadists aside (and you actively know who they are because you don’t want your kids playing with them) and convince them to wear funny hats so that they could be easily distinguished from the peaceful ones.  In return, it will be easy to tell which moderate peaceful Muslims to make jokes about and which jihadist Muslims to pacify.

In addition, especially outside of this country, Muslims live in cultures where Aristotle is now completely absent.  To find something similar in this country you would have to go to a Protestant church or a university faculty lounge.  No wonder they act illogically, they don’t even know that logic was invented.  Humor would go right over their heads; non-contradiction, what is that?

In contrast to the majority of Muslims in backward cultures around the world, Christians in this country have the opportunity for a great life, thanks to Aristotle and his descendents.  Despite this objective fact, these Christians insist on believing that life in reality sucks and that life’s goal is an imaginary place after death because of a book written by shepherds in a desert says so.  That is a pretty good reason to make fun of Christians!

“For today, we are all Hokies,” a member of the Tribe broadcast.

Monday’s horrific attack on students at Virginia Tech is a profound tragedy for the family and friends of the victims, both fallen and injured.  My deepest condolences to those affected.  The events of the day compel us to focus on the tragedy of their deaths, but it is essential to celebrate their lives and accomplishments.

Personally, I hope my Fiji brothers and members of the campus Objectivist club are all safe.

Many years ago, I hung out in AJ and took classes in Norris.  The familiar-to-me-images around campus on the television brought home a wider truth to me: life is dangerous and there are no guarantees so individuals must make choices that advance their lives.  It isn’t about living happily ever after, but living fully.

Although I do not want to repeat the media error of premature speculation, I think that it is safe to say that there are important philosophical issues at work in these events.  As more information is available, I hope to look at those as the media is unlikely to do so.     

Until then, in celebration of the victims’ lives, listen to the Marching Virginians play Tech Triumph. 

Death of a Sculptor by Daniel Chester French

Photo by Lee Sandstead 

With wide-eyed anticipation, I got up this morning and ran to the computer expecting to browse wondrous gifts of spring humor; but, NOTHING!!!!  What evil conspiracy is afoot?  I suspect the Invisible Sky Daddy, or at least his multitude of minions.

Remember three years ago, when John Cox was imprisoned because his creative license had expired.  How about the empty dialogue bubbles incident in 2005?  Oh, how I miss the censored card game between Mo’, Jess, Mo’, and a cigar smoking pig; good times {wiping nostalgic tear from my eye}.

Right now, I could really use a good vehicle April Fools joke from Nick Provenzo:  the van down by the river and the monster truck for Capitalism. 

Images: Center for the Advancement of Capitalism 

This year’s C&F April 1 offering gave me the clue I needed for my missing chortles.  My conclusion, the theists have ruined the innocent humor of April Fools Day by making a deadly laughing stock of themselves every day of the year.

This is why today, on this high holy day of humor, I declare an Atheist Jihad on the Muslims, Christians, and Environmentalists. 

As YouTube’s Captain Awesome has explained, in an Atheist Jihad, Atheists don’t try to kill or physically maim the true believers, instead we make fun of them, their ridiculous beliefs, and of course their Invisible Sky Daddy.  

To begin this Atheist Jihad, I have a suggestion for the FBI.  Overtime, I have been very critical of them for not having more than one terrorist on their Ten Most Wanted Fugitive List, despite having many opportunities to fill vacant slots.  While we all really hate bank robbing murdering pedophiles, the FBI has declared fighting terrorists as their primary mission and not a side feature, and their actions should probably not contradict their stated mission, if they want to be taken seriously.

Now that the FBI has captured the infamous gangster Shauntay Henderson, let me suggest another fugitive from justice to add to their Top Ten dragnet.  So that it is not too much of a departure from their usual focus, my suggestion is not just a terrorist, but also a pedophile.  If the FBI is too busy to track down this fugitive and his “gang,” perhaps they should refer the case to Fred Thompson over at “Law & Order: SVU.”

My nominee to be inducted into the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives List is: Mohammed, curses be upon him and his thoughtless followers.  To aid in the FBI investigation, below is a video taped confession by Mohammed and a proposed Wanted poster.  

Mohammed’s Confession

Wanted Poster

Video and Poster via Captain Awesome

The idea of Sen. Fred D. Thompson as President sounds like a better movie then reality show, but this proposition has graduated from talk radio to the front page of the Washington Post, while he rises up the Gallop poll.

Given the man-crush that conservative Republicans have on him at the moment, blaring warning bells sound over who he really is when it counts.  On the issues, he seems the typical Republican who might accidentally be moderately better on many issues, but very very bad on others. 

During the Watergate hearings, Mr. Thompson, in his role as minority counsel to the Watergate investigating committee, appeared as a supporting character in Ayn Rand’s essay “The Principals,” [1] which analyzed the players in that melodrama.  Ominously, he was not then worthy of an essay identifying men of principles; as a prospective President in a time of war, is he today?

Rand’s essay begins with an observation that could be useful in the upcoming campaign season, if only reporters in the media could resist their compulsion to make their own performance the center of the story instead that of the actual actor on the hustings.

Television has a peculiar power to reveal the essence of a man’s character, one learns more from a televised image than from a face-to-face encounter; an act that may work in a drawing room is magnified and stripped away, leaving the man naked.  The camera seems to photograph, not men’s faces, but their souls.  It is a wonderful invader of psychological privacy, more potent than a lie detector.  Most politicians should run from a TV camera, invoking the Fifth Amendment.

While analyzing the dialogues of Jeb Stuart Magruder, deputy creep in the Nixon re-election campaign, Rand identified an unprincipled young man acting on personal peccadilloes instead of  substantial clear and present danger within an environment that included domestic terrorist acts by the Left.  Senator Ervin’s response to the shallow Magruder echoes in congressional hearings today.

I came up here during Joe McCarthy days when Joe McCarthy saw a communist hiding under every rose bush…and I have been here fighting the no-knock laws and preventive detention laws and indiscriminate bugging by people who’ve found subversives hiding under every bed.  In this nation, we have had a very unfortunate fear.  And this fear went to the extent of deploring the exercise of personal rights for those who wanted to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances…Now, I think that all grew out of this complement of fear, did it not, the whole Watergate incident?

As Sen. Schumer seems to be cribbing today from Senator Ervin then, perhaps minority counsel Thompson may have something to say on behalf of prospective-President Thompson.  Rand actually credits Thompson with being “perceptive” in an effort to rebut Senator Ervin evasion of the actual environment of politically motivated bombings, arsons, and murders; however, he was ultimately ineffective because of his unprincipled fellow Republicans.  Rand reports the exchange between Thompson and Magruder, beginning with Thompson’s question.

“Were you concerned about legitimate demonstrations, or were there more serious things going on in the country at that time?  Up until that time had there been bombings of public buildings, for example?”  In an almost patronizing tone of voice, Magruder answered:  “Well I think it goes much deeper than that, not only were there bombings of public buildings, we had death threats against Mr. Mitchell’s life.  We had continuous demonstrations in front of our headquarters.”  The tone of voice said, in effect:  “Public bombings, hell!  They threatened us!”

Mr. Thompson tried again, obviously struggling to impart some political stature to a sulking juvenile:  “Had there been a series of break-ins of F.B.I. offices, for example?”  “Yes, sir, many.”  “Was it your opinion at the time there were plans afoot to make some attempt to overthrow the Government by illegal and improper means?”  “I would not go so far as to say overthrow the Government,” Magruder answered scornfully, and went on in a tone of disclosing something much more important:  “I think we had some concern about them overthrowing our convention as they did with Democratic party convention in 1968.”  Mr. Thompson gave up.

At this point, my hypothesis regarding Senator Thompson is that unlike other Republicans he can stay on message, hit his cues, and follow the script.  But, who is going to write his script?  Is he the political savior that the religious right prays for in this election? 

Focus of the Family’s James Dobson has announced that Sen. Thompson must make a public demonstration of his faith, if he expects to receive support from fundamentalists.  Sen. Thompson’s rhetorical response on the campaign trail to this public challenge could demonstrate who would be scripting a Thompson presidency.

Given the failings of Bush policies inspired by the political philosophy of Jesus Christ (such as Bush‘s use of the Just War Doctrine), the principle issue in the Republican primary will be the selection of a candidate focused on reality, who acting of principle can end terrorism-sponsoring Iran, and lead the repeal of punitive taxes, spending and regulations that attack individual rights at home.  We can no longer dismiss as irrelevant candidate statements that their mind is focused upon and inspired by the non-existent.

[1] Ayn Rand, “The Principals…,” The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 18, Jun. 18, 1973.

Image Source: Cox and Forkum

Last week I heard several conservatives on talk radio identifying environmentalism as a religion having an unassailable revealed truth that makes political discourse impossible.  While their identification is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, having made the point myself several years ago, I agree with that characterization of environmentalism.

There was a wrinkle in the conservatives lament in that star environmentalists like Al Gore were pointed out as hypocrites.  While advocating that the producers of the world limit their life sustaining activity because it creates green house gases, these “star” consumers did the opposite with their private jets, fleets of cars, and multiples of luxurious energy-hungry homes.  Further, that instead of reducing their own “carbon footprint,” these star environmentalists paid for carbon offsets to justify their overconsumption.

There are a couple interesting historical parallels that the conservatives failed to identify, but point to factors that could limit the expansion of environmentalism into Christian churches, aside from a fringe offering a fusion product.  It is better that these rival groups of mystics should continue to attack one another instead of finding common ground.

From the historical Christian perspective, what is a carbon offset?  Going back to the Reformation, the sale of indulgences to sinners.  Those that willfully violate the revealed truth of the environmentalist religion may be absolved of their sin for a fee.  After hundreds of years of civil wars within Christendom, initiated over indulgences, I think that Catholics and Protestants have at least a shared revulsion of the idea that sins by the unrepentant are washed away with a monetary fine paid to the clergy.

The conservatives commentators also raised the specter of taxes on green house gas pollution.  Such taxes, created on order of the environmentalist religion, amount to a religious tithe.  Thus one religion, the Earth cult, via a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, would draw upon the force of government to collect unwilling tithes from non-believers.  Historically, Muslim rulers forced such taxes–called jizya–upon Christians and other Dhimmis, non-believers.  Given the probable downward pressure inflicted upon the collection plate that this would have, I would expect priests and ministers to oppose the competition being granted such monopoly power.

Both St. Augustine and Martin Luther, as religious leaders, strongly advocated for a separation church and state.  Unfortunately, religious conservatives failed to get that message.  As they continue to oppose state environmentalism as the official religion, they will confront the contradiction between their own advocacy of state religion and their opposition to such advocacy by others.  In the face of Islamic terrorism, they have failed to resolve such contradictions and are unlikely to do so again; however, some thinking individuals may perform an integration that will save their own mind.