Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009

Some expert on post-mortem etiquette once said that if you can’t say anything good about someone who has passed on, you shouldn’t say anything at all.

Azeusism vs Atheism

In Greek mythology, Zeus was the king of the gods, the ruler of Mount Olympus and the god of sky and thunder. He was the Greek equivalent of today’s generic Judeo-Christian “God.”

When Christianity began to gain in popularity during the first and second centuries, Greek mythology still held sway in The Roman Empire. So, the early converts to Christianity could have been called Azeusists. Azeuzists refused to believe in Zeus. Atheists refuse to believe in a generic God.

Conservative Romans, understandably, looked upon Azeusists with disdain, just as the religious conservatives of today regard atheists with contempt. Secularism and atheism are wrongly blamed for all manner of atrocities, from Hitler and the holocaust to the horrors of Soviet-style communism. No doubt the early Christian Azeusists had to endure similar abuse from the conventional “believers” in the first and second centuries.

The truth, of course, is that both Nazism and communism are brazenly irrational ideologies rooted in the philosophical traditions of emotionalism, subjectivism and collectivism. Their essence is every bit as anti-reason as any God-based religion. To blame atheism for their atrocities is to ignore the actual source of those evil ideologies. Azeusism is not the basis of Christianity (or Judaism) any more than atheism was the basis of Nazism and communism. The absence of a belief in a particular God says nothing fundamental about the actual content of a belief system.

Christians (and Jews) need to realize that, in terms of unconventional radicalism, their early adherents shared something in common with the atheists of today. Christians rejected Greek mythology in the name of Jesus.

Rational atheists reject all mythology in the name of reason.

Abortion Rights and Fetal Viability

Following the murder of Kansas abortionist George Tiller on May 31, 2009, public attention has again focused on the issue of partial birth and late-term abortion. Tiller’s assassination was a heinous act; that much is clear. His murderer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But the issue which Tiller’s death has brought to light is not that of abortion rights. It is more specifically the issue of late-term abortion.

Scott Holleran, an Objectivist writing for Capitalism Magazine (capmag.com), wrote an article-- Abortion and the Death of Dr. George Tiller--in which he never once mentions the fact that Tiller specialized in late-term abortions—abortions where the viability of the fetus was often not in question. He correctly defends abortion as a woman’s right to control her own body, but completely glosses over the fundamental question of fetal viability.

Dr. Mary L. Davenport, M.D., a former abortionist herself, writes that "contrary to the assertion of abortion rights supporters that late-term abortion is performed for serious reasons, surveys of late abortion patients confirm that the vast majority occur because of delay in diagnosis of pregnancy. They are done for similar reasons as early abortions: relationship problems, young or old maternal age, education or financial concerns." Davenport cites a statement by Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who admitted in 1997 that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies.

"The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy,” says Davenport. “With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby."

Glenn Woiceshyn, another Objectivist writing on behalf of the Ayn Rand Institute, made the following statements in several articles dealing with the controversial topic of so-called "partial birth abortion":

" 'Partial-birth' abortion, most commonly known as intact dilation and extraction (D&X), is designed primarily to be used in the case of 5- and 6-month-old fetuses that are dying, malformed, or threaten the woman's health or life... “

"Anti-abortionists coined the term 'partial birth' to suggest that the partially removed fetus is no longer "unborn," and, therefore, Roe vs. Wade no longer applies (so they allege). But linguistic manipulation can't create an essential distinction when none exists. A woman has a right to her own body, and, if she chooses to abort, then all effort should be made to protect the woman from injury. To rule otherwise is to negate this right."

"Banning any type of abortion to 'protect the fetus' necessarily grants rights to the fetus -- an utter perversion of individual rights... Properly, an infant's rights begin after the fetus is removed from the mother's body and its umbilical cord cut..." Ban on "Partial-Birth" Abortion Would Be a Blow to Individual Rights (9-25-03)

The fact is that there are essential distinctions to be made here, but Woiceshyn (and, by his silence on the issue, Holleran) want to deny this. Banning the abortion of a viable fetus in favor of safely removing it from the womb in no way violates the mother’s rights. Anti-abortionists claim that this issue reveals the hypocrisy behind the claims of pro-choice advocates that they want to stand on the principle of a woman's right to control her own body. The cavalier sanction of late term abortion, when the viability of the fetus is in question, suggests that whim-worship, not self-determination, is what the supporters of pro-choice are really defending.

Where a clear threat to the health and safety of the woman can clearly be established, late-term abortion may well be justified. But Woiceshyn defends abortion in a way that implies a woman can blithely choose to destroy the fetus until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. He contends that to do otherwise is to open the door to an eventual ban on all abortions. But there is no slippery slope if the line is drawn at the point of fetal viability.

The opposite is true: the failure to make crucial distinctions regarding the developmental stage of the embryo or fetus totally undermines the pro-choice position, and lends credence to the pro-lifer's contention that all abortion represents the devaluation of human life.

Woiceshyn argues that the opponents of "partial birth abortion" are trying to "create an essential distinction when none exists." Well, since he is writing under the auspices of the Ayn Rand Institute, he might have investigated what she had to say on the subject:

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable.” Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Letter, A Last Survey--Part I, Vol. IV, No. 2 November-December, 1975.

Ayn Rand obviously considered the first three months of a pregnancy to be essentially distinct from the subsequent stages. There is every reason to believe she may well have opposed late-term and ‘partial-birth’ abortion.

Is Obama a Friend of Freedom?

Polish dissident Lech Walesa recently said of Ronald Reagan:

“When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989. Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend…”

The leader of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, gave similar credit to Reagan for his moral support of the anticommunist rebellion in his own country.

Yet President Obama prefers to take a ‘wait and see’ attitude toward the dissident movement in Iran. He wants to know who the winner will be before he takes sides. He does not want to “antagonize’ the brutal dictators who are the major exporters of international terrorism. He wants to be sure they are not upset with him when he eventually sits down across the negotiating table. Years from now, if the dissidents succeed in winning their freedom, they are unlikely to express much fondness for the role Obama played in their struggle against tyranny.

Obama sent Vice-President Biden to Lebanon on the eve of their national election, thus giving a big boost to the anti-Hezbollah forces that prevailed in that vote. Somehow that was not “meddling.” Of course it was—and with good cause. The cause of American self-interest, the security of a key American ally, Israel, and the defeat of international terrorism.

Obama claims he does not want to give the Iranian leadership any cause to blame the United States for the uprising. Well, guess what? The Iranian leadership is doing that anyway. But the dissidents are not responding as expected.

Things have changed in the 30 years since the Ayatollah overthrew the Shah. There was considerable anti-American sentiment then, because the U.S. was seen as propping up the Shah. But today’s Iranian dissidents are singing a very different tune. Most of them were not even born in 1979. What they want is freedom, and they are looking to the leader of the free world for some much-needed encouragement.

This is the moment we have been waiting for—the perfect opportunity to get rid of this oppressive theocracy without firing a shot, and we are choosing to sit quietly on the sidelines. In the name of American self-interest, we should be actively helping the dissidents in any way we can.

The evidence that they want our support is clear. Many of the signs they are holding are written in English. Whose attention do you think they are seeking? Two thirds of Iran’s current population is thirty and under, and they do not want to live their lives under a backward theocratic regime. Many of them are yelling: “Death to the Ayatollah!” They like America because, up to now, we have explicitly declined to endorse their oppressors.

But in his relative silence, Obama is doing exactly that. Would Bush have handled the situation differently? Who knows? He did not speak out in support of the protestors in Tibet in 2008. Nor did he back those protesting the re-election of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak in 2005. But in neither of those cases were the vital interests of the United States as much at stake as they are in Iran.

We can only hope that Obama will reverse course and emulate the unflinching courage of Ronald Reagan. If Obama could successfully rally the international community to the cause of freedom in Iran, he might well earn a place alongside Reagan’s proud legacy.

The Definition of Insanity

Is Barack Obama losing his mind?

Aside from ignoring the best opportunity to help foment a fantastic pro-freedom revolution in Iran-- the worst instigator of international terrorism and therefore the greatest threat to US security? Timidity in the present historical context is tantamount to a total abnegation of Presidential responsibility. But let’s disregard that little matter for now. Someone once said that the definition of insanity was repeating the same behavior over and over while expecting different results.

President Barack Obama’s call for the creation of a new office within the federal government — a Consumer Financial Protection Agency—is based on the theory that If only someone in government had been looking out for consumers, the subprime mortgage mess might never have happened. We must take action to reverse the “culture of irresponsibility” that led to the current financial crisis.

The new agency would have the power to make rules for the industry and to enforce them. Obama said that the power to lay out new rules is essential, “so that the bad practices that led to the home mortgage crisis will be stamped out.”

“Most critically in the run-up to the financial crisis, mortgage companies and others outside the purview of bank regulation exploited that lack of clear accountability by selling mortgages and other products that were overly complicated and unsuited to borrowers’ financial situation,” the Obama administration says. “Banks and thrifts followed suit, with disastrous results for consumers and the financial system…”

Could Obama possibly not know that it was government intervention that directly led to the mortgage meltdown? Could he be ignorant of the fact federal legislation spawned agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the purpose of promoting sub-prime mortgages—i.e., mortgages for people who could not afford them on the free market? The “culture of irresponsibility” was a Frankenstein monster deliberately brought to life by the federal government. Without the government offering to stand behind subprime loans, the mortgage crisis could never have happened. Financial institutions would never have made the bad loans.

Obama’s solution? More government intervention.

Insanity? The solution is to return to the free market’s built-in rule for survival: the fundamental responsibility imposed by the need to make responsible business decisions out of rational self-interest.

And then there was President Obama's speech to the American Medical Association last Monday. He used the occasion to promote his proposal for national health care--the largest expansion of federal intervention into U.S. health care since the creation of Medicare in 1965. Obama is determined to reshape the entire medical industry and change how Americans receive and pay for healthcare. We must act now to “control the spiraling cost of health care in America.”
Apparently the amount of cost imposed on taxpayers counts for nothing. Another measly trillion dollars. Big deal.

He ignores so much of the reality staring him in the face that you start to wonder about the man’s grip on reality. When did medical costs begin to spiral out of control in this country? With the advent of Medicare. It was then that the federal government, with all its cumbersome incompetence and lack of free market self-discipline, became a primary player in the healthcare field. Doctors and hospitals began charging fees that would never have been paid if tax funds were not covering the cost. Suddenly the Pentagon’s infamous approach to expenditure control (remember the $2000 toilet seat?) was extended to doctor visits and hospital stays. All hell broke loose.

Obama expressed awareness of all the alleged problems that other nations who have nationalized healthcare have encountered. . All this talk of services denied or seriously delayed, turning elder citizens away from care altogether, serious declines in health care quality, huge strains on the budget and economy, and America as the last bastion of healthcare quality and innovation. Etc. Etc. Baloney. “We have heard it all before,” he says. We cannot use such alleged ‘facts’ as an excuse for inaction.

He offered no evidence that any of those facts were inaccurate. Instead, he stoked fears about the fiscal disaster that awaits us if we do nothing, using General Motors as an example: "If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke." Except that medicine, unlike the auto industry, isn’t being dragged into bankruptcy by exorbitant, government-backed union contracts. As already explained, medicine is being destroyed, in large part, by an existing government program: Medicare.

Now Obama’s solution for achieving universal healthcare is to “slash health care costs” by creating a Medicare-style government insurance plan open to everyone. Note: Medicare’s projected unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years are about $36 trillion. If current trends persist, the cost of Medicare will be 19% of gross domestic product by then.

Now imagine the cost of expanding that program to cover everyone, not just the elderly and indigent. The mind boggles.

Unlike his predecessor in the Oval Office, Obama does not hve the luxury of being perceived as stupid. (I do not know if Bush is, in fact, stupid, just that he was often perceived that way. ) Obama is perceived as intelligent. So if he is behaving foolishly, we are left with two alternatives: (1) ulterior motives, or (2) insanity. Advocates of the first hypothesis suggest that his agenda calls for destroying capitalism and the capitalist ethic (i.e., self-interest) in the name of Marxism and collectivism. Socialists often elevate their warped moral ideals over practical reality. If ulterior motives are at work here, Obama's tenure as president will prove to be devoted to dismantling the American way of life. My hypothesis is somewhat more charitable.

So let me just say that I am genuinely concerned about our President. Anybody know a good psychiatrist?

It Was Great While It Lasted

Dateline Washington: “Pentagon officials warned on Tuesday that North Korea's missiles could strike the U.S. within three years if its weapons growth goes unchecked.”

Guess where in the US? Good morning, LA. Your days are officially numbered.

Based on everything we are seeing—and not seeing--it looks as if our pathetic “leaders” have no intention of protecting the United States. No wonder they have dispensed with all that prattle about terrorism. What is the purpose of government, if not national self-defense? Oh yeah, I forgot. Its purpose is to tax the life out of the economy, bail out failed businesses, devalue the currency and provide cheap, third-rate medical care. And sanction terrorist Islamic regimes when they are threatened with insurrection.

Meanwhile the imbecile ‘do-gooders’ keep up their costly, wasteful war on drugs, even while they do everything they can to create demand for brain killers by destroying productive society. Let’s lock up all the dopey marijuana users while drunk drivers kill thousands every year. That’s a good investment of police forces and prisons. They could at least let people have a little fun while they’re busy ruining everyone’s lives. I mean, even the Romans got to have their orgies while the Barbarians were getting ready to storm the gates.

I don’t use drugs. I just think it’s ironic. Make people miserable so they need to escape. Then take away their means of escape. What a dirty, rotten thing to do.

Our wonderful protectors are despicably cruel as well as unbelievably cowardly and incompetent.

Congrats, you power-lusting D.C. slime. It wasn’t easy, destroying the greatest nation in human history, but you managed. Way to go.

ANGELS AND DEMONS – A Bracing Philosophical Thriller

The Order of the Illuminati was an ancient secret society of freethinkers formed in large part to counter-act the suppression of modern science by the Catholic Church. The centuries old war between the Illuminati and Roman Catholicism can be seen as a symbolic smoking gun for the ongoing cultural antagonism between secularism and religion. The most famous of the early Illuminata—Gallileo, the founder of modern science—was denounced as a heretic and placed under house arrest for the final decade of his life by Pope Urban VIII.

Centuries ago, the Illuminati were the victims of a systematic campaign of ruthless persecution and murder by the Vatican. The story of Angels and Demons revolves around the apparent resurgence of the Illuminati and the fulfillment of their 17th century promise of vengeance against the Catholic Church. Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, played by Tom Hanks, finds himself caught in the middle of an apparent Illuminati plot to use “antimatter”—a substance said to hold the key to the creation of the universe—to destroy Vatican City during a papal conclave for the selection of a new pontiff.

The ingenious plot thus uses the secular-religious controversy of the origin of the universe as a philosophical backdrop for the drama of a grand scale murder mystery that pits the defenders of modern science against its historical arch-enemy, the Catholic Church. One of the striking features of the story—both the novel and the movie—is that the key character, Professor Robert Langdon, is a secularist with no use for religious faith. One reviewer calls him the “first atheist movie hero.”

The film is not only beguiling and riveting but rapturously clever. Director Ron Howard has created a cinematic masterpiece. Howard’s briskly paced, compelling adventure unfolds with a dramatic intensity that surpasses the excellent job he did with Dan Brown’s previous best-seller, The Da Vinci Code, which featured an equally suspenseful plot and an equally brilliant historical tapestry.

Tom Hanks again does a terrific job in the role of Robert Langdon—a man who clearly acts on the basis of logic and facts, not faith or feelings. Hanks adeptly captures Langdon's most essential quality--the power of his sparkling intelligence--and it shines through every scene. His beautiful and engaging female co-star, Ayelet Zurer, plays a scientist with a similar devotion to unswerving rationality. Both admirably represent the cause of realism and secularism, even while their services are enlisted by those who represent the exact opposite. It is as though mysticism were suddenly forced to recognize the superiority of reason for the sake of its own survival.

This reviewer is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the facts to address the issue of whether the author of Angels and Demons, Dan Brown, portrays the history of the Illuminati accurately. There are legitimate questions as to when the secret organization actually originated. Some historians view it as a direct outgrowth of the 18th century Enlightenment. But this historical controversy need not detract from the brilliance and ingenuity of Brown’s complex and amazingly exciting plot.

Convinced that the Illuminati are responsible for the Vatican threat, Langdon retraces the steps of the "Path of Illumination," a cryptic geographic route which the Illuminati used for inducting new members. This “Path” leads Langdon to many of the most enthralling locations throughout Rome. Besides being a riveting, breathtaking drama, the story also provides a fascinating tour and exploration of some of Rome’s most enduring and magnificent historical artifacts.

Near the climax of the story, a key Vatican spokesman eloquently expresses the threat which the church feels from the heretical forces of intellectual “Light”: “If science can explain the origin of the universe, what then is left for faith?” What better dramatic-philosophical premise could a secularist possibly hope for? (I understand the scientific question of the origin of the universe as we know it to be separate from the metaphysical fact that existence as such had no 'beginning'--i.e., existence exists.)

Dan Brown is remarkable. Not only has he succeeded in using the rich, captivating history of the Catholic Church to promote and popularize the cause of secularism, he has done so in a way that is richly entertaining and enjoyable. And director Ron Howard deserves similar accolades for a doing such a wonderful job of bringing Brown’s extraordinary fiction to the silver screen.

Obama's Divine Castration of National Security

Boy, he sure sounds good. That cocky stride to the podium, that authoritative voice, that precise delivery, those confident, perfectly timed head movements, that straight-ahead, no-nonsense, focused manner of an inspiring leader. Wow. Aren’t we all fortunate to have a great, valiant courageous intellect in the White House instead of that dimwit who preceded him?

“My single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe.” His predecessor, incidentally, despite all his numerous faults, did that for over seven years even though he faced one of the most evil, murderous, diabolical enemies in American history. This is the same administration whose national security policy Obama savagely attacked throughout his speech at the National Archives.

“We are cleaning up something that is quite simply a mess…” If Americans had to choose between the ‘mess’ he inherited and the alternative tragic loss of innocent life which Obama’s moral cowardice may well precipitate, they would gladly take the mess.

“I ran for President promising transparency…” “National security requires a delicate balance…” Empty platitudes resonate through his enraptured throng like insights from a profound thinker. He will continue to enjoy his masquerade of vacuous moral-intellectual stature right up until another 9-11 reveals him to be an empty suit and a disgrace to his office. We can only hope that his national security advisors can convince him that saving human lives is slightly more important than gilded rhetoric.

“We uphold out most cherished values, not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe.” So we are obliged to empower those who want to kill us by letting them use our values against us, thereby weakening our ability to defend ourselves? Please take note: you to do not owe ethical conduct to someone who wants to kill you. Honesty does not oblige a woman to tell a prospective rapist that she is home alone. You cannot permit an enemy to transform your values into the means of your self-destruction. When your life and survival are threatened with violence, the only value that counts is self-defense. Period.

“Some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding are necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more.” Translation: The fact that it worked on the mastermind of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and saved countless American lives can be conveniently ignored if I make it sound like I am some high-minded idealist. Meanwhile, he authorizes (correctly, in my view) the collateral deaths of Pakistani civilians in bombing raids targeting Al Quaeda strongholds. No inconsistency there?

“We should give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel.” So we must now give enemy combatants all the protections of the US Constitution. Those who are devoted to destroying America and everything it stands for should have all the rights of U.S. citizens—while their daily sustenance is provided by the U.S. taxpayers they want to kill.

“Our government made a series of hasty decisions.” Guantanamo is “a misguided experiment that endangered America” and has become “a recruiting tool for Al Quaeda.” Perhaps. But for the opposite reason Obama suggests. America is endangered because our overly benevolent treatment of those who want to kill us is seen as weakness. There is no good reason to close Guantanamo. To call it a national embarrassment is an act of sickening cowardice in the face of unfounded ‘touchy-feely’ criticism and unconscionable moral timidity.

Is philosophy irrelevant to daily life? Here is the mind-body dichotomy—the quasi-religious view that the spiritual is inherently cut off from and in conflict with the physical world—rearing its ugly head in governmental policy, working to undermine human survival. We can be thankful to have a President who is not held hostage by an archaic, anti-life, evangelical perspective, but unfortunately many of his policies reflect the exact same religious base as his predecessor.

There is no conflict between moral values and the real world—the whole purpose of values is to sustain human life. A divine perspective on moral values enables evil to use your values against you, because religion drops the context that it is life which makes the concept of values meaningful. Ayn Rand called it the principle of “The Sanction of the Victim.”

The national media seem quite impressed with the emperor’s new clothes. If only it was just the emperor who was naked. And not the brazen weakness of America’s national security.

Obama at Notre Dame: The Evil of the "Pro-Life" Agenda

The labels placed on the opposing sides of major cultural/political controversies are often not only misleading but exactly opposite to the truth. The label of pacifism given to those who reward aggression with appeasement, thereby inviting mounting violence against the innocent, is one example. The only rational way to truly promote peace is to advocate immediate and overwhelming force against the perpetrators of force.

The labels given to those on opposite sides of the abortion issue are another example. The protests directed at the administration of Notre Dame University for inviting President Barrack Obama to speak at their commencement ceremony—and for giving him an honorary law degree—are based on a moral premise that is fundamentally anti-life.

Obama was exactly right when he said that “the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory.” The opponents of abortion describe themselves as “pro-life,” yet totally ignore the life of the woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

When that situation occurs, regardless of whether the woman used a prophylactic method or not, there are two lives involved, not just that of an embryo. To ignore one of those lives is to suggest that the woman’s interests are no longer of any significance. Her life, her happiness, her needs, her future are no longer of any consequence. All that matters is the life of the "unborn." The significance of the existence of “potential human life” per se is elevated to moral supremacy, and everything else is diminished. That life, even if it is barely distinguishable from the life of the lowest animal, must be preserved at all costs.

Apply that same standard to other situations where two human lives are in conflict—where the preservation of one life may require the abrogation of another’s rights. An example would be a life-threatening medical problem where a sibling’s life depends on a bone marrow or organ transplant from a brother or sister. And to make the comparison more accurate, let us suppose that the surgery represents a serious danger to the survival of the brother or sister, threatening his/her future life and happiness. Would the advocates of the so-called “pro-life” position seriously suggest that the brother or sister has no right to say no? Or would they see that, by describing their position as “pro-life,” they are totally ignoring one of the two lives?

In the case of abortion, of course, we are talking about an enormous impact on the woman’s life that goes far beyond the biological act of delivery. Her entire future will be impacted in a major way, regardless of any heart-wrenching option of giving up the baby for adoption.

And, more importantly, we are also talking about an undeveloped embryo as opposed to a fully independent human being. No genuinely “human” being can claim any rights that require the abrogation of another’s rights. Yet abortion opponents want to grant such rights to a zygote or embryo. That is why the issue must be understood in terms of individual rights, not some arbitrary definition of “when life begins.”

The only genuinely “pro-life” position in the abortion debate is that of favoring a woman’s inalienable right to choose.

“Gunman” : A Gross Misnomer Written in Blood

Every time some lunatic with a gun goes on a killing spree, the media do all they can to pour kerosene on this ever-growing wildfire of cultural madness by glorifying the little weasel responsible for the mayhem as a “gunman.” The pathetic losers lurking in the bowels of civilized society are thereby emboldened by the fantasy of a rugged macho gunfighter holding off the world with his powerful weaponry and perhaps perishing in a hail of valiant gunfire. Each news story serves only to fan the sick, demented emotional flames leading to the next one.

If only the media would stop bowing to the ironclad journalistic protocol of restricting themselves to nonjudgmental, “objective” labels and call such vermin for what they are: subhuman lice who are such abject failures at life that they must deprive those who actually deserve to be called human the chance to live. Instead of the semi-romanticized “gunman,” they should describe the perpetrator in the most humiliating terms we can devise: insects, rodents or some other term appropriate to nonhuman waste. Just describing them as excrement would imply that they are on the same level as human feces, a status far above their actual moral rank.

Do not allow such pathetic, miserable wretches to imagine that, after their death, they will be glorified by semi-heroic terms such as “gunman.” We must make them understand that, for the crime of senselessly destroying innocent lives, they will be universally regarded as the most cowardly excuses for a human being as ever walked the earth.

A Question of Sanction

One of the most excruciating experiences I endured as a teenager was catechesis, a long period of strictly supervised instruction in the teachings of the Bible consisting of mind-numbing rote memorization, done in preparation for receiving the sacrament of confirmation. Catholic (or, in my case, Episcopal) confirmation is supposed to bring an increase and deepening of “baptismal grace.” The purpose of all that tedious, agonizing study is to root the young person more deeply in the divine, uniting him more firmly to Christ, rendering his bond with the Church more perfect and giving the youth a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith by word and action as a true witness of Christ. [What utter horsecrap!]

Catechesis is customarily conferred only on those old enough to “understand” it, typically around the age of 13. I vividly remember being asked to swallow some of the most arbitrary, irrational garbage imaginable, and I do not recall ever feeling more utterly bewildered by what I was being asked to believe. At a time when I was desperately struggling to understand the world around me, I felt as though I were forcibly cast into a living nightmare.

Well, apparently the official “leader” of the Objectivist movement, Leonard Peikoff, thinks that Catholic confirmations are just ducky. He thinks an Objectivist can attend a Catholic confirmation ceremony without sanctioning religion because, like marriage, it is a rite that “can have a secular base.” Despite all of the viciously irrational religious indoctrination involved, he does not see it as fundamentally different from a secular “coming of age” ceremony, a rite of passage intended to help prepare a young person for the life ahead….

Oh really? Helping him how? By teaching him that he lives in a nightmare universe? By destroying his capacity to think?

In his podcast of March 3, 2009, Peikoff openly declares that he has no problem with attending such ceremonies in a church setting. “I have attended a couple of Catholic weddings and a confirmation,” he says.

By attending such a ceremony--and encouraging others to do so--Peikoff is cavalierly giving his sanction to the barbarous cruelty and incalculable destructiveness--the unconscionable evil--of religious indoctrination.

Unbelievable.

The 'Horror File'

Ayn Rand’s monthly Objectivist magazine used to include the “Horror File,” which was reserved for the worst examples of mystical-collectivist evil offered by our current culture. If The Objectivist were still being published today, a recently published book would certainly deserve top billing in that category. There is no need to comment on it. The authors’ naked evil is far too transparent and despicable to be dignified by serious analysis.

Unjust Deserts—How the Rich are Taking Our Common Inheritance, and Why We Should Take It Back

By Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly

C-Span summarizes the book’s theme as follows: “The authors argue that the majority of the wealth created in the United States is the result of inherited social knowledge, and is far less attributable to ingenuity, an increase in effort or smart investment decisions on the part of individuals. They argue that society as a whole should benefit from this wealth creation far more than it currently does.”

Mr. Alperovitz and Mr. Daly recently appeared on C-Span’s Book TV. Ugh. If either of them is at all interested in a second career in the movies, they should audition for the role of Wesley Mouch or the other villains in the upcoming film version of Atlas Shrugged. They would be perfect.