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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Objective Morality In A Nutshell
The key ethical steps to a rational world:
(1) The foundation and starting point: Why does man need a code of moral values?
(2) Man’s nature is that of a rational being.
(3) Man has free will, and must choose to think (i.e., reason) in order to survive.
(4) Man is constantly faced with unlimited choices and alternatives, and must have rational values and principles to guide his decisions and actions across the span of his life.
(5) Because man’s life is the source of all values, man’s life must be the standard of value. The objective requirements of human life must be the standard for defining principles of right and wrong.
(6) Actions that promote man’s proper survival (e.g., productiveness, honesty, integrity) are rational and good; actions that thwart man’s survival (e.g., dishonesty, passivity, self-sacrifice) are irrational and evil.
(7) The mind is a property of the individual. Each individual must necessarily take responsibility for his own life—i.e., for his own choice to think and to be guided by his rational understanding and conclusions.
(8) Rational egoism is man’s proper moral code.
(1) The foundation and starting point: Why does man need a code of moral values?
(2) Man’s nature is that of a rational being.
(3) Man has free will, and must choose to think (i.e., reason) in order to survive.
(4) Man is constantly faced with unlimited choices and alternatives, and must have rational values and principles to guide his decisions and actions across the span of his life.
(5) Because man’s life is the source of all values, man’s life must be the standard of value. The objective requirements of human life must be the standard for defining principles of right and wrong.
(6) Actions that promote man’s proper survival (e.g., productiveness, honesty, integrity) are rational and good; actions that thwart man’s survival (e.g., dishonesty, passivity, self-sacrifice) are irrational and evil.
(7) The mind is a property of the individual. Each individual must necessarily take responsibility for his own life—i.e., for his own choice to think and to be guided by his rational understanding and conclusions.
(8) Rational egoism is man’s proper moral code.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Gridiron Heroism of Peyton Manning
I have long admired quarterback Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts, ever since he played college ball for my alma mater, the University of Tennessee. He is the personification of everything good about the world of professional sports, a young man of enormous athletic ability who works hard to stay at the top of his game. Every season he seems to set new passing NFL records. Not only is he enormously gifted; his success derives as much from his intelligence and command of the game as from his physical skills. When the Colts visited San Diego last Sunday to take on the Chargers, I drove down from Los Angeles to watch him in person.
What surprised me most when I arrived at the stadium was to discover just how many people shared my adulation. Indianapolis is thousands of miles away, but the number of fans wearing blue and white jerseys with his name and number 18 on the back was amazing! They were everywhere!
Manning did not disappoint. The Colts' defense couldn't hold a ten point lead, but San Diego tied it up with 1:30 left. What were the Chargers thinking? Did they forget who was waiting patiently on the opposite sideline?
Peyton was facing fourth and inches with 27 seconds left at mid-field. Instead of a quarterback sneak, Peyton throws a 15 yard pass to set up the field goal that won the game. I couldn't believe he did that, but it worked. It was still another game-winning, last second drive engineered by Peyton Manning.
In a world full of irrationality, depravity, hopelessness and despair, witnessing such a display of superior ability is a genuine inspiration, a kind of emotional transfusion that reminds you about the possibilities of life. It was a rare thrill to watch him in action. This is a man who takes nothing for granted. He has truly earned all the accolades lavished upon him by his legions of fans, and I am proud to count myself as one of them.
What surprised me most when I arrived at the stadium was to discover just how many people shared my adulation. Indianapolis is thousands of miles away, but the number of fans wearing blue and white jerseys with his name and number 18 on the back was amazing! They were everywhere!
Manning did not disappoint. The Colts' defense couldn't hold a ten point lead, but San Diego tied it up with 1:30 left. What were the Chargers thinking? Did they forget who was waiting patiently on the opposite sideline?
Peyton was facing fourth and inches with 27 seconds left at mid-field. Instead of a quarterback sneak, Peyton throws a 15 yard pass to set up the field goal that won the game. I couldn't believe he did that, but it worked. It was still another game-winning, last second drive engineered by Peyton Manning.
In a world full of irrationality, depravity, hopelessness and despair, witnessing such a display of superior ability is a genuine inspiration, a kind of emotional transfusion that reminds you about the possibilities of life. It was a rare thrill to watch him in action. This is a man who takes nothing for granted. He has truly earned all the accolades lavished upon him by his legions of fans, and I am proud to count myself as one of them.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Guilt by Association
Much has been made of President-elect Obama’s past associations with the vitriolic American-hating Pastor Jeremiah Wright and terrorist William Ayers, which have been cited as evidence of anti-American tendencies in his thinking, as well as moral turpitude and poor judgment. I would agree with that assessment. On the other hand, a little historical perspective may be in order here.
In 1983, Marc Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran when that country was actively holding US hostages. The pair were indicted while they were in Switzerland. They did not return to the U.S. following the indictment, and remained on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made major donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, certain critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought.
Yasir Arafat was a frequent guest at the Bill Clinton White House. His wife, Suha Arafat, received a loving embrace from Mrs. Clinton moments after Mrs. Arafat finished a speech in which she accused the Israelis of gassing Palestinian children. In 2000, the Palestinian terrorist leader gave Mr. and Mrs. Clinton gifts valued at more than $12,000, including gold and diamond necklaces, bracelets and earrings worth $7,400.
As disgusting as this is, how does it compare to wasting 4000 American lives and bankrupting our economy in an altruistic Republican crusade like Iraq?
I have no doubt that such repugnant conduct barely scratches the surface of the graft and corruption rampant in Washington. We have no reason to think that Obama is anything but a typical liberal politician and an unprincipled pragmatist. Nothing more. Nothing less. We have survived worse.
In 1983, Marc Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran when that country was actively holding US hostages. The pair were indicted while they were in Switzerland. They did not return to the U.S. following the indictment, and remained on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made major donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, certain critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought.
Yasir Arafat was a frequent guest at the Bill Clinton White House. His wife, Suha Arafat, received a loving embrace from Mrs. Clinton moments after Mrs. Arafat finished a speech in which she accused the Israelis of gassing Palestinian children. In 2000, the Palestinian terrorist leader gave Mr. and Mrs. Clinton gifts valued at more than $12,000, including gold and diamond necklaces, bracelets and earrings worth $7,400.
As disgusting as this is, how does it compare to wasting 4000 American lives and bankrupting our economy in an altruistic Republican crusade like Iraq?
I have no doubt that such repugnant conduct barely scratches the surface of the graft and corruption rampant in Washington. We have no reason to think that Obama is anything but a typical liberal politician and an unprincipled pragmatist. Nothing more. Nothing less. We have survived worse.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Counterfeit Messiah
“Is there anyone out there who still questions that America is the land where all things are possible, that the dream of our founders is alive in our time?”
--Barack Obama
Watching the respective speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain on election night, one thing was unmistakably clear: the best man won. Obama is not the corrupt, America-hating “subhuman” demon that certain Objectivist spokesmen claimed him to be; he is, if nothing else, an extraordinary human being, a born leader with a singularly powerful and eloquent voice. His speech told of the glorious vision of America’s founders and how this day gave further demonstration of their revolutionary grasp of human potential, of how there are few limits to what free individuals can achieve, regardless of barriers and limitations. He spoke of individual liberty and of his love for the hope America presents to the world. He was strong, bold, and confident, painting a Reagan-esque portrait of the contrast between where we are now and what America can be and ought to be.
McCain’s concession speech was a typically vacuous, boring, rambling epitaph for his erratic, losing campaign, a last plea for sympathy from a clueless, self-important windbag who felt the need to assure America that they should be thankful he will not be delivering further such tortuous diatribes over the next four years. “I don’t know what we could have done different to win this campaign,” he said. Try offering America something other than traditionalist bromides, socialistic bail-outs and Bible-thumping Republican Barbie dolls.
In terms of basic ideas, there is almost no meaningful difference between Obama and McCain. It is Obama’s charisma, presence and personality that set him apart. His vapid, worn-out ideas are hopelessly impractical and destructive—but so were McCain’s. Obama is nothing more than a symbol—a beacon of hope and promise for an obscure, undefined future. His campaign theme of “fundamental change” is essentially meaningless, but it can serve as a point of departure, as a rallying cry for those who recognize that it is truly time to rethink the ideas and values—the disastrous contradictions-- that led us to our present state of chaos, and to adopt a radically new philosophical framework, one that is truly consistent with the Enlightenment vision of America’s founders. That is, a philosophy of reason, individual rights and free market capitalism.
Obama is not the leader we need for the future. But his anti-Republican campaign was the clarion call of the demand for such a leader, and underscored the crucial importance of making a clean break with our nation’s recent cultural-political trends. Religion and religious morality have been profoundly repudiated, leaving a philosophical void we must try our best to fill. Obama is a counterfeit Messiah, a brilliant voice who must devote his youthful energies to camouflaging the embarrassing truth that he offers nothing new, that all the ‘solutions’ he proposes have been tried and failed, over and over again.
That void will soon become apparent. It is the task of Objectivists to expose that void, as clearly as possible, and to spell out a truly rational alternative.
--Barack Obama
Watching the respective speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain on election night, one thing was unmistakably clear: the best man won. Obama is not the corrupt, America-hating “subhuman” demon that certain Objectivist spokesmen claimed him to be; he is, if nothing else, an extraordinary human being, a born leader with a singularly powerful and eloquent voice. His speech told of the glorious vision of America’s founders and how this day gave further demonstration of their revolutionary grasp of human potential, of how there are few limits to what free individuals can achieve, regardless of barriers and limitations. He spoke of individual liberty and of his love for the hope America presents to the world. He was strong, bold, and confident, painting a Reagan-esque portrait of the contrast between where we are now and what America can be and ought to be.
McCain’s concession speech was a typically vacuous, boring, rambling epitaph for his erratic, losing campaign, a last plea for sympathy from a clueless, self-important windbag who felt the need to assure America that they should be thankful he will not be delivering further such tortuous diatribes over the next four years. “I don’t know what we could have done different to win this campaign,” he said. Try offering America something other than traditionalist bromides, socialistic bail-outs and Bible-thumping Republican Barbie dolls.
In terms of basic ideas, there is almost no meaningful difference between Obama and McCain. It is Obama’s charisma, presence and personality that set him apart. His vapid, worn-out ideas are hopelessly impractical and destructive—but so were McCain’s. Obama is nothing more than a symbol—a beacon of hope and promise for an obscure, undefined future. His campaign theme of “fundamental change” is essentially meaningless, but it can serve as a point of departure, as a rallying cry for those who recognize that it is truly time to rethink the ideas and values—the disastrous contradictions-- that led us to our present state of chaos, and to adopt a radically new philosophical framework, one that is truly consistent with the Enlightenment vision of America’s founders. That is, a philosophy of reason, individual rights and free market capitalism.
Obama is not the leader we need for the future. But his anti-Republican campaign was the clarion call of the demand for such a leader, and underscored the crucial importance of making a clean break with our nation’s recent cultural-political trends. Religion and religious morality have been profoundly repudiated, leaving a philosophical void we must try our best to fill. Obama is a counterfeit Messiah, a brilliant voice who must devote his youthful energies to camouflaging the embarrassing truth that he offers nothing new, that all the ‘solutions’ he proposes have been tried and failed, over and over again.
That void will soon become apparent. It is the task of Objectivists to expose that void, as clearly as possible, and to spell out a truly rational alternative.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Hold Your Nose and Vote for Obama
Prior to now, I have indicated my intention to abstain from voting for either McCain or Obama. Frankly, I despise both of them. After some extensive soul-searching, however, I have changed my mind. I will vote for Obama. Not as an endorsement of him or anything he stands for—but as a rebuff of everything his opponent stands for.
America is at a philosophical crossroads. We can either move further in the direction of the values of faith and altruism—or take a significant step away from those values. We are not yet being given the positive option of moving toward reason and individualism, but we do have the option of endorsing or rejecting our culture’s prior trend. The best outcome we can hope for in this election year is a clear, strong repudiation of everything the Republicans stand for—most importantly religion and religious morality.
In this respect, McCain is even worse than Bush. His pathetic defense of America’s greatness is exactly 180 degrees wrong. He defends America as a nation of great sacrifices—i.e., pure, undiluted altruism--and compounds that evil, disastrous viewpoint by choosing a devout mystic--a Christian creationist with even less experience than Obama--for his running mate.
Yes, Obama’s policies will do further damage to the economy, but we can scarcely deny that the Republicans are almost as bad if not worse. At least the Democrats do not camouflage their statist policies with free market rhetoric, making it much more difficult for the public to understand that government intervention is the true source of our current severe troubles.
Obama has made clear that he will continue to prosecute the war on terror, and hopefully he will do so in a less timid and self-sacrificial fashion than we have seen from Bush. He has shown some signs that he might do exactly that. We will see. In any case, how could he do worse than sacrificing 4000 innocent soldiers and bankrupting our economy in a doomed altruistic crusade to save a nation of America-hating savages?Most Americans seem to understand that a radical change is needed—a radical change in the sense of a change in fundamental values--and Objectivists can help them validate that premise. We can join with America’s voters to send a single message: “America does not buy into the Republican view of America’s values.”
We have to knock down that evil, repugnant, faith-based viewpoint before we can begin building a better one. It will not take long for Americans to see clearly that the alternative Obama offers—socialism—is equally destructive. Americans will learn that lesson very quickly—and hopefully begin to look for a new and better direction. Let us hope that an eloquent, rational spokesman will step forward to offer what they are seeking: reason, individual rights, and genuine free market capitalism.
Obama does indeed represent “change,” and we do need a bold statement of that now, in the form of a clear rejection of what the Republicans have offered and continue to offer. Obama is an empty suit and a zero point. He offers nothing but a negative—but a negative is all we can ask for at this primitive stage of our nation’s philosophical development.
It is tragic that America has come to such a dismal choice—but true change can only begin with self-acceptance. I will hold my nose, but I will vote for Obama.
America is at a philosophical crossroads. We can either move further in the direction of the values of faith and altruism—or take a significant step away from those values. We are not yet being given the positive option of moving toward reason and individualism, but we do have the option of endorsing or rejecting our culture’s prior trend. The best outcome we can hope for in this election year is a clear, strong repudiation of everything the Republicans stand for—most importantly religion and religious morality.
In this respect, McCain is even worse than Bush. His pathetic defense of America’s greatness is exactly 180 degrees wrong. He defends America as a nation of great sacrifices—i.e., pure, undiluted altruism--and compounds that evil, disastrous viewpoint by choosing a devout mystic--a Christian creationist with even less experience than Obama--for his running mate.
Yes, Obama’s policies will do further damage to the economy, but we can scarcely deny that the Republicans are almost as bad if not worse. At least the Democrats do not camouflage their statist policies with free market rhetoric, making it much more difficult for the public to understand that government intervention is the true source of our current severe troubles.
Obama has made clear that he will continue to prosecute the war on terror, and hopefully he will do so in a less timid and self-sacrificial fashion than we have seen from Bush. He has shown some signs that he might do exactly that. We will see. In any case, how could he do worse than sacrificing 4000 innocent soldiers and bankrupting our economy in a doomed altruistic crusade to save a nation of America-hating savages?Most Americans seem to understand that a radical change is needed—a radical change in the sense of a change in fundamental values--and Objectivists can help them validate that premise. We can join with America’s voters to send a single message: “America does not buy into the Republican view of America’s values.”
We have to knock down that evil, repugnant, faith-based viewpoint before we can begin building a better one. It will not take long for Americans to see clearly that the alternative Obama offers—socialism—is equally destructive. Americans will learn that lesson very quickly—and hopefully begin to look for a new and better direction. Let us hope that an eloquent, rational spokesman will step forward to offer what they are seeking: reason, individual rights, and genuine free market capitalism.
Obama does indeed represent “change,” and we do need a bold statement of that now, in the form of a clear rejection of what the Republicans have offered and continue to offer. Obama is an empty suit and a zero point. He offers nothing but a negative—but a negative is all we can ask for at this primitive stage of our nation’s philosophical development.
It is tragic that America has come to such a dismal choice—but true change can only begin with self-acceptance. I will hold my nose, but I will vote for Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)