The Fountainhead is, and I suspect always will be, another one of those books by Ayn Rand.  Her violently individualistic nature is presented in this book with absolutely no niceties being made, subtleties non-existent and her absolute hatred of socialism permeating every facet.  And, still, it’s an impressive read and one a person should not miss.

It is a story “about a hero-and about those who try to destroy him.” (from the back of the book)  The hero, in this case, is a redheaded architect named Howard Roark.  Kicked out of college for refusing to design buildings in a nondescript classic way he pursues a career in architecture and to make buildings his way.  The world is against him it would seem and that is mostly due to a newspaperman- Elsworth Toohey.

As the writer of a humble column titled “One Small Voice”, Toohey feigns subservience to people.  Not some people but ALL people and thus propagates this image of him as one who stands up for everyone at the expense of himself.  He never does anything for himself, is what he tells people, but rather for others until those individuals reach such a place in society which enables Toohey to pursue his ultimate goal. [I am not going to tell you what it is for that would be a spoiler of epic proportions.]

The story is about an individual who has no need to assert himself anywhere as anything other than who he is.  Roark repeatedly says he doesn’t feel anger from being cast as a pariah in his field of expertise, not in that deep down embittered manner- it only goes “so deep”.  He is self-contained, self-possessed and quite lacking in self-righteousness until the end of the book.

Even when he is confronted by his lover, Dominique Francon, and informed she has married someone else Roark holds steadfastly to his individualist ideals.  As she declares it, while also telling Roark she would divorce her husband and instead marry him, he holds to his principles and philosophy.  It is, perhaps, one of the most wonderful cases made for selfishness I’ve ever read and in a manner which shows value to both individuals.

…We never need to say anything when we’re together.  This is-for the time when we won’t be together.  I love you, Dominique.  As selfishly as the fact that I exist.  As selfishly as my lungs breathe air.  I breathe for my own necessity, for the fuel of my body, for my survival.  I’ve given you, not my sacrifice or my pity, but my ego and my naked need.  This is the only way you can wish to be loved.  This is the only way I can want you to love me.  If you married me now, I would become your whole existence.  But I would not want you then.  You would not want yourself-and so you would not love me long.  To say ‘I love you’ one must know first how to say the ‘I.’…”

While the book focuses upon Roark’s career and the difficulties he is forced to endure, the above paragraph is ultimately what the book is about.  The courage to stand up and say “this is who I am and these are MY accomplishments” in a world where “two heads are better than one, three heads are better than two”.  It is about self ownership and the trials one might go through in order to maintain that.

In some ways it’s a more difficult read than Atlas Shrugged for Rand’s ideas hadn’t yet become fully formed, nor her anger and resentment over what occurred in the country of her birth gone yet from her heart.  It is still an excellent book which leads the reader to ask many questions of themselves and, perhaps, create within them the desire to always evaluate how they come to the opinions they do.  I close this review rather uncharacteristically with a quote from Nietzsche as it sums up the character of Roark.

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

The Freeman Chronicles is back for good, and it will be updated daily. I have since left the Peace, Freedom, and Prosperity Movement because of the conservativesque and tyrannical delusions of its founder James Cox, who is well known as Facebook as a control freak, an evangelical atheist who has tried to convert me to Atheism while in the process of ditching my spiritual system (I hate the word “religion”!) known as Stregheria (a Tradition of Wicca), an inconsistent (and not a true one at that) Objectivist, and an Ayn Rand kook to top it off.

I’m glad to be done with him permanently. Just so everyone knows, I will no longer copy and paste my blog posts on PFP anymore.

Ashgate’s current top selling ebook for Kindle is Edward Younkins’ Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Published to coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of Atlas Shrugged’s publication, this companion is an exploration of this monumental work of literature. It includes specially commissioned contributions from a range of scholars who admire and have been influenced by the book.

As well as being available as an ebook, Ayn Rand’s Atlas shrugged is also available in paperback and hardback editions.

Ayn Rand’s complex philosophical novel, Atlas Shrugged, is hugely popular, yet intimidating or confusing to some people. By assembling this impressive collection, Edward Younkins has done something wonderful for both those who enjoyed the novel and those yet to discover it. Younkins and his collaborators examine many different facets of the novel, from the perspectives of a variety of different disciplines: literature, philosophy, economics, politics, history. This is sure to be a thought-provoking and conversation-stimulating anthology.
Aeon J. Skoble, Bridgewater State University

Edward Younkins appreciates the significance of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged to so many disciplines and thus he has assembled an impressive collection of essays by distinguished experts in many fields to mark the fiftieth anniversary of Rand’s monumental work. Younkins understands the unique nature of “Atlas “; it is a great work of romantic literature, its plot shows in the concrete the importance of economic liberty and a morality of rational self-interest, it outlines an integrated philosophy – Objectivism – by which to guide one’s life, and it offers a vision of the kind of life and world that this philosophy can produce. This collection is a welcomed volume for the millions who love Rand’s magnum opus.
Edward Hudgins,The Atlas Society & the Objectivist Center

Atlas Shrugged is a thrilling and, in my view, nearly indispensable part of courses on economics and government. Dr Younkins’s insightful collection of essays by experts in many fields will prove immensely valuable to teachers and students who use Atlas and to any reader who seeks deeper understanding of Ayn Rand’s marvellous novel.
John B. Egger, Towson State University

A collection of this type is long overdue. Edward Younkins has exhibited an impressive vision in assembling this extraordinary book just in time for the 50th anniversary of Ayn Rand’s masterpiece.
Lew Rockwell, Ludwig von Mises Institute

Atlas Shrugged has been called the most important novel of ideas since War and Peace. Now, more than 20 years after Ayn Rand’s death, she and her great book are beginning to get the scholarly attention they deserve. This Companion is a fine example of that.
David Boaz, Cato Institute

About the Editor: Edward Younkins is one of the leading scholars on the works of Ayn Rand in the world. He is the author of ‘Capitalism and Commerce’ and ‘Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand and Beyond’.

Watch Edward Younkins talking about Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged on Youtube

Contents: Preface; Introduction. Part 1 An Overview: Atlas Shrugged: Ayn Rand’’s philosophical and literary masterpiece, Edward W. Younkins; Atlas Shrugged: manifesto for a new radicalism, Chris Matthew Sciabarra; The Aristotelian significance of the section titles of Atlas Shrugged, Douglas B. Rasmussen; Various levels of meaning in the chapter titles of Atlas Shrugged, Fred Seddon; Some structural aspects of Atlas Shrugged, Lester H. Hunt; Table of contents for Ayn Rand’’s Atlas Shrugged, Hans Gregory Schantz. Part 2 Philosophy: Atlas Shrugged’’s moral principle of the sanction of the victim, Tibor R. Machan; Forced to rule: Atlas Shrugged as a response to Plato’’s Republic, Roderick T. Long; The role and essence of John Galt’’s speech in Ayn Rand’’s Atlas Shrugged, G. Stolyarov II. Part 3 Literary Aspects: Ayn Rand’’s cinematic eye, Mimi Reisel Gladstein; Atlas Shrugged as a science fiction novel, Jeff Riggenbach; Ayn Rand’’s recasting of ancient myths in Atlas Shrugged, Kirsti Minsaas. Part 4 Aesthetics: Atlas and art, Ronald F. Lipp; My music: why it’’s romantic, and why I write it that way, Roger E. Bissell; Fuel for the soul, Russell Madden. Part 5 Political Economy: The economics of Atlas Shrugged, Peter J. Boettke; Atlas, Ayn and anarchy: A is A is A, Larry J. Sechrest; The businessman and Ayn Rand: Galt’’s Gulch in real time, Spencer Heath MacCallum; Ayn Rand’’s Atlantis as a free market economy, Sam Bostaph; Atlas Shrugged and public choice: the obvious parallels, Bryan Caplan; Francisco d”Anconia on money: a socio-economic analysis, Steven Horwitz; Human productivity in Atlas Shrugged, Jack Criss. Part 6 Human Relationships: Dagny and me, Karen Michalson; Atlas Shrugged: the dream of every woman, Joy Bushnell; Friendship in Atlas Shrugged, Peter Saint-Andre; Romantic love in Atlas Shrugged, Jennifer L. Iannolo; Beyond the ‘’stillborn aspiration”: virtuous sexuality in Atlas Shrugged, Susan Love Brown. Part 7 Characterization: The price of passivity: Hank Rearden’’s mind-body dichotomy, Virginia Murr; Hugh Akston, the role of teaching, and the lessons of Atlas Shrugged, Ken Schoolland and Stuart K. Hayashi; When the train left the station, with two lights on behind: the Eddie Willers story, Robert Campbell; In the beginning was the thought: the story of the wet nurse, Jomana Krupinski; The destruction from the nihilism train: the Cherryl Brooks story, Jennifer J. Rhodes. Part 8 History: Atlas and ”the Bible”: Rand’’s debt to Isabel Paterson, Stephen Cox; A note on Rand’’s Americanism, Douglas J. Den Uyl; The non fictional Robert Stadlers: traitors to liberty, Walter Block; Atlas Shrugging throughout history and modern life, Stuart K. Hayashi. Index.

The Associated Press reports on Michigan state Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith’s proposal to restructure her state’s tax code in order to raise $6.5 billion. Here are some of the highlights:

– Extend the sales tax to services and reduce the overall tax rate from 6 percent to 5.5 percent.

– Eliminate the 22 percent surcharge on the Michigan Business Tax.

– Replace the state’s 4.35 percent flat income tax rate with a graduated income tax rate of 4 percent for individuals making zero to $45,000, 7 percent for individuals making $45,000 to $60,000 and 9.75 percent for individuals making more than $60,000 (income brackets would be doubled for joint filers). Some of the tax would be offset for those who itemize deductions on their federal income tax forms.

– Eliminate $3 billion in business tax exemptions.

– Create a new income tax credit that would cover all tuition paid to state universities, community colleges and vocational schools. The credit also would apply to preschool costs.

– Set aside $500 million from the elimination of the business tax exemptions for public education, erasing all the cuts made this fall.

The three glaring points include the elimination of business tax exemptions (which will raise the effective tax rate for businesses), creation of a more progressive tax system (which will punish production), and guarantee of free education for Ameircan citizens.

Any rise in taxes for business is of course a terrible idea for multiple reasons. The first is that the less income a business has, the less money it has to spend on new jobs and capital investments (i.e. those things that would increase the quality of life for Michigan residents). The second is that it will provide incentive for businesses to relocate to other, lower-taxing states and discourage new businesses from forming in Michigan.

Apart from undermining individual liberty, a progressive tax system punishes production and discourages economic growth by discouraging capital investment. Call it supply-side or trickle down economics if you’d like, but a slanderous name does not render these basic economic principles false.

Finally, education is a scarce good. There are not enough facilities, teachers, etc. to provide every single person with a college degree. Granted, this may (and hopefully will) change over time, but the supply of education would – in a free market – gradually adjust with increasing demand as quality of life improves and more consumers can afford it. But with a price ceiling effectively set at $0, there will be shortages in the supply of education because of the artificially low demand. This is econ 101 – price ceilings create shortages. A tax credit for education means that an individual will be able to deduct the entire cost of education from his final tax liability, rendering the cost of education $0 by the time all is said and done. And none of the above reasons against free education even touches on the questions “by what right?” and “at whose expense?” (Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)

Michigan, by no stretch of the imagination, has a fantastic record when it comes to its tax code. But this proposal goes so far that “stupid”may be the only appropriate description.

Everyone knows that middle-aged sexual predators lurk in chatrooms, posing as insecure tweens looking for a friend; or friend other insecure tweens on MySpace; or that if you don’t lock up your wireless network tight, terrorists are going to tap into it and turn your naivete into massive-scale crime; or that that email with the suspicious subject line is a virus that’s going to delete all your files (even if you do have a Mac); and that if you don’t forward this message of holiday cheer to 42 people by midnight, an axe murderer will sneak into your room at 3 am and— ZZSWAR9ARG7Z

You get the point.  There are dangers hiding behind every hyperlink.

I don’t mean to be flippant (no, that’s a lie; I do, but it’s strictly rhetorical)—the Internet can be a scary place, and scary people use it.  I’m all for parental controls and spam queues.  What I’m not for is the underlying premise beneath Internet fear-mongering—because it’s not always just “Stranger Danger.”

Some of the outcry against danger (or obscenity, or perversion, etc, et al) comes with a call to action that frightens me more than any technological boogeyman—if the Internet is dangerous because it’s so open, because anyone can do, really, anything, why not regulate?

In 1993, SF author Bruce Sterling (“Junk DNA,” remember?) wrote an article called “A Short History of the Internet,” which you can find in its entirely online, and which I highly recommend.  For my part, I’ll focus on just a few key facts, some of the points from the reading assignment for today’s American Studies lecture on “The Internet Revolution.”  So:

1. The very openness and decentralization of the Internet that makes it “dangerous” was built into its most basic structure—from the perspective of a Cold War scientist, you see, a communication network would have to be as decentralized as possible in order to still function after a nuclear holocaust wiped out God-knew-where in the United States.  With this in mind, the less authority—the better (sounds strange for a military-government program, doesn’t it?).

2. And after decades of evolution, that’s what we still have: no authority.  Sterling asks:

Why do people want to be “on the Internet?”  One of the main reasons is  simple freedom.   The Internet is a rare example of a true, modern, functional  anarchy.   There is no “Internet Inc.”   There are no official censors, no bosses, no board of directors, no stockholders.  In principle, any node can speak as a peer to any other node, as long as it obeys the rules of the TCP/IP protocols, which are strictly technical, not social or political.

Sixteen years after those words hit shelves in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, and that’s still true: it’s simple science fact, and no less amazing for it.

Online, you are what you type, upload, or post—identities are fluid.  It’s true that might mean a fifty-year-old man staring at a glowing screen in his basement could pretend to be a junior high girl on a some Edward Cullen fan site, but it also means that young Peter Wiggin can blog and be seen by the world as an elder statesman.

It’s freedom to be creative without the stigma of age, sex, race, or anything else that might lead someone to prejudge you before looking at your work or ideas: online, you are your ideas.

Blogger and SF writer Cory Doctorow’s name (which I feel I mention every other post) is almost synonymous with Internet freedom.  Publishing his novels under a Creative Commons license for free distribution online (DRM-free, I might add), Doctorow could almost be a character from one of his own books—Alan/Adam/Albert/Avi, for example, from Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town, spends the time he’s not brooding about his troubled childhood as the eldest son of a mountain and a washing machine, setting up a free, open, wireless network for the people of his local town.

(I did say almost a character.)  In any case, he practices what he preaches, and in all his books shows just how cool our world is.  I’m going to have to quote Makers again– we’re living in the “weirdest and best time” in the history of the world.  Witness the astonishing success of modern anarchy:

“No one needed to draw a map of the Web,” Kurt said, “It just grew and people found its weird corners on their own.  Networks don’t need centralized authority, that’s just the chains on your mind talking.”

I have to give my professor credit—revolution was a good title for the lecture.  Even after our first Revolution, observers (read: Alexis de Tocqueville) noticed a tension in American society between liberty and equality, freedom and democracy.  Oftentimes, they clash (see any debate on social welfare programs—the object is equality of outcome, but at the expense of freedom to use and dispose of one’s property, money).

But no political arguments in this post about liberty and equality: the anarchy of the Internet is one of the only places where you don’t really have to choose.

In Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, she writes,

Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others. By what criterion of justice is a consensus-government to be guided? By the size of the victim’s gang.

The logic behind this statement is simple and largely self-evident, though often ignored in policy discussions. It should be noted that the article I write about below has nothing to do with the above quote – which is precisely the problem.

A November 19th article from The Economist ponders the question of how governments can best raise revenue through taxes. To the author’s credit, he states in the first paragraph:

Although spending cuts could, and should, be the preferred route to prudence, taxes are all too likely to be part of the mix—at least judging from the experience of those countries that have already acted.

Unfortunately, the article concludes that developed countries would do best to focus on “efficiency” rather than “fairness.” If a government’s goal is to pursue the utilitarian goal of the “greatest good for the greatest number,” this preference for efficiency over fairness would be correct. However, any government with such utilitarian goals is an abomination.

The author does make some important points about alternate tax systems. Taxes on consumption, including a value-added tax (VAT), are regressive; meaning the lower an individual’s income, the higher he is taxed. Consumption taxes do, as the author points out, encourage saving – but they simultaneously discourage spending. Corporate taxes, it is noted, are particularly market-distorting. The critical numbers of the article can be found in the graph below (click to enlarge).

The author also illustrates an interesting phenomenon that often goes overlooked. Very collectivist (communist, socialist, fascist, etc.) have government revenues that make up a relatively large percentage of GDP, when compared with economically liberal countries such as the U.S. Russia, for example, has government revenues equal to 47.7 percent GDP, while the U.S. has government revenues equal to 33.7 percent GDP. But these percentages do not tell the whole story. It is also important to look at the components that make up these percentages. In Russia, non-tax revenues (largely related to state-owned oil companies) make up 14.5 percent of GDP, while in the U.S. non-tax revenues comprise only 5.7 percent of GDP.

At first, this may seem to be a much more efficient way for governments to raise revenue (though, to be sure, the article never makes this claim). It is easy to understand why a person unfamiliar with the record of history may see no difference between a government-run entity earning revenues and a private firm collecting profits. Is there any real difference between the Russian government selling oil and ExxonMobil selling oil?

The answer is a definite “yes”.

History and economics  both teach us that no central body can determine the amount of goods and services needed by individuals. Only the invisible hand of market forces can provide society any degree of efficiency. So even if government raises its revenue through so-called production instead of taxation, there will still be massive transaction costs and inefficiencies on both the supply and demand side. And of course, the government has incentives that conflict with offering the best product at the best prices. Governments typically have two goals: 1) gain power, 2) create social value. Yes, these are often at odds;  and yes, the second is often a means to the first. Regardless, governments are not motivated by profits. And the profit motive is the driving force behind real economic efficiency.

But all of this talk of efficiency misses the point. I’ll return now to the point of the quote I began with.

When reading such articles, it’s easy  to get wrapped up in the author’s arguments and lose the ability to distinguish the forest from the trees. Though the free market is far more efficient than a centrally-planned market, is that really a concern when so many tax systems and government sources of revenue violate individual rights? ExxonMobil has vast resources at its disposable to best its competition. But the one thing it does not have is the ability to coerce by force. Only by offering its customers the greatest value at the lowest price can it win in a free market. While the Russian government (or any other government) only has to pass laws – backed, of course, by men with guns – to maintain its supremacy. Take the U.S. Post Office, for example. If FedEx and UPS were allowed to carry mail, would the USPS have any chance at remaining viable? Of course not. Only by regulation and force can the USPS continue to provide income for the U.S. government.

So whether you are concerned with efficiency or freedom, the property confiscated by government should be reserved only for the protection of our individual rights.

One final thought from Ayn Rand on the subject:

There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept “just a few controls” is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the government’s unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement. As an example of this process, observe the present domestic policy of the United States.

One of the reasons it’s a little hard for me to take Ayn Rand seriously as a philosopher is because the question of human nature is such a fundamental issue, and I think she got it completely wrong.

She once said that the notion of “man as a heroic being” was a cornerstone of her belief system.  I’m afraid that “heroic” is too generous a term to describe a great deal of human behavior.

Take this, for example.

By Mark Dohle

Not too long ago headlines declared the climate debate was over, global warming was real and there will be catastrophic consequences if nothing was done to stop the warming.   In fact, global warming has occurred since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Global temperatures increased by 0.6K. (IPCC)  The debate is not about this measured quantity.  Many other important questions remain unanswered.  What are the driving forces behind climate change?  How much and how fast is climate changing?  What will be the consequences?   What actions, if any, should individuals and governments take in order to direct the global climate.

As Francis Bacon eloquently stated, “nature to be commanded must be obeyed”.  It is impossible for anyone to direct the climate without knowing how the climate works.  Before individuals and governments can act in any meaningful way, they must understand the nature of global climate.  Only after figuring out how the climate works can one decide whether or not changing the climate is beneficial or even possible.   Small changes in climate, such as those observed since the start of the industrial revolution posed no new threat to human lives and were within the normal range of historical trends.  It was the authoritative prediction of accelerated warming that caused the alarm.   The following argument attempts to show that current methods of climate prediction, which used models based on various assumptions, did not and cannot predict climate change.  This is because the nature of global climate is not understood.  Also, any plans to direct the climate towards a constant temperature cannot work because the nature of global climate is not understood.

A 2004, University of California investigation titled, “Increase of carbon cycle feedback with climate sensitivity: results from a coupled climate and carbon cycle model”, performed under contract W-7405-Eng-48 of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was used in this argument to show what the consensus determined and how the knowledge was formulated.  This investigation was contrasted with another (DOE) funded investigation titled, “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data” presented by Lindzen and Choi in July 2009.  The comparison revealed the contrasts between the methods and results obtained by climate modelers and climate observers.

The critical concept of climate feedback tied the two investigations together. Climate feedback is the rate at which radiation escapes the “blanket” of greenhouse gasses as temperature changes.  A positive feedback means less radiation escapes—accelerating warming— as temperature increases and a negative feedback means more radiation escapes—decelerating warming— as temperature increases.  An accurate account of feedback is vital to climate prediction because all the models used to predict climate change did so based on a climate sensitivity factor that was based on feedback.

The results from the University of California investigation as well as the results from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were based on climate model predictions.  The IPCC predicted 1.4-5.8K degrees of warming in the next century, (Govindasamy 154) and concluded that “[a]nthropogenic emissions of fossil fuels and change in land use are expected to lead to significant climate change in the future (IPCC, 2001).” (Govindasamy 153)

Our (University of California) results indicate that carbon cycle amplification of climate warming will be greater if there is higher climate sensitivity to increased atmospheric CO2 content; the carbon cycle feedback factor increases from 1.13 to 1.48 when global warming increases from 3.2 to 8 K.  (Govindasamy 153)

In the 2 × sensitivity case there is a decline of nearly 95% of ice volume. We find that the sea ice disappears completely in both hemispheres in their respective summers in that run. (Govindasamy 156-57)

In terms of area occupied by different vegetation types, tropical and temperate forests expand significantly with global warming (Fig. 5; Table 2). The area covered by these forests increases from about 40% in the control case to nearly 60% of the land area in the 2 × sensitivity case. In general there is a migration of tropical, temperate and boreal forests poleward with warming, leading to significant declines in the area occupied by tundra and polar deserts (land ice) in the 2 × sensitivity run. (Govindasamy 159)

It must be noted in the above paragraphs that the warming was driven by a relatively high climate sensitivity and the predictions of sea ice melting and vegetable migrations were dependent on those same models.  Through an analysis of the Lindzen and Choi report, “On Climate Feedbacks from ERBE Data”, it is possible to discover why computer modeling predictions for climate change must be wrong.  The models were wrong because they were using ungrounded assumptions in order to calculate results. Lindzen and Choi observed and compared the change in outgoing radiation with changes in temperature across the same space and time.  The results indicated that increases in temperature correlated to increased amounts of radiation escaping the “blanket” as lost heat. In other words, climate feedback was observed to be negative. Negative feedback results in relatively low climate sensitivity, (Lindzen 1), much lower than modelers had assumed.

The climate sensitivity numbers used in the University of California report and in the IPCC reports were based on the assumption that feedback was positive, not negative.   It should also be noted that the sensitivity factor used by the University of California was at the low end of sensitivity factors normally used in models, including IPCC models. (Govindasamy 154)

The climate model used here has equilibrium climate sensitivity to increased CO2 (2.1 K per doubling) that is at the lower end of the range of the general model population (IPCC, 2001). In order to address the dependence of carbon cycle feedback on climate sensitivity we investigated the sensitivity of this positive feedback for a range of equilibrium climate sensitivities to increased atmospheric CO2 content; nominally, 0, 2 and 4 K per doubling of atmospheric CO2 content. With the SRES A2 emission scenarios, this produces a simulated year 2100 global warming ranging from 0 to 8 K. (Govindasamy 159)

The climate model used by Thompson et al. (2004) has a climate sensitivity (∼2 K for a doubling of CO2) near the low end of the conventionally accepted range (1.5 to 4.5 K per CO2 doubling; IPCC, 2001). (Govindasamy 154)

The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)  nonscanner data “appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5°C.” (Lindzen 9)  That is more than four times less than the assumed value of climate sensitivity used by climate models.   Assuming the observations performed by the ERBE were accurate, the predictions of accelerated warming in the University of California report were meaningless because the models did not simulate the Earth’s climate properly.  The predictions for climate change were meaningless because they were based on meaningless temperature predictions.  Also, all models that developed climate sensitivity factors based on positive feedback were wrong.  That includes the models used by the IPCC.

In order maintain consistency with observation and also show results of significant global warming, all the models that used climate sensitivity factors must make corrections.  This amounts to nothing more than sophisticated guess and check work.   Judging from the development of the models used in the University of California report, “corrections” are commonplace in model generation when observations conflict with their assumptions.  Below is an example of a “correction” made during the 2004 study by the University of California.

Initial coupled simulations showed that when IBIS2 was coupled to the PCTM, precipitation biases typical of current climate models caused vegetation errors that, in turn, amplified precipitation biases in regions where surface–atmosphere moisture recycling is known to be important. This erroneous feedback resulted in unacceptable vegetation in some areas, particularly parts of the Amazon. To remedy this, a precipitation correction scheme was implemented. At every surface grid point, and every time step, the simulated precipitation field is multiplied by a constant that is a function of position but otherwise static and identical across all runs. The constant precipitation “correction field” acts to move the model’s simulated present-day annual mean precipitation towards an observed climatology…(Govindasamy 155)

In practice, the precipitation correction employed here is similar to the surface heat “flux corrections” used in early coupled ocean–atmosphere models. It would be better not to have to use it, but until model improvements obviate the need, a correction is required to generate a reasonable coupled control case. (Govindasamy 155)

The question remains, which report is true?  Climate feedback cannot be both positive and negative over the same space and time, so they both cannot be true.  The answer to this question lies in the realm of epistemology.  Where does truth come from?  How is knowledge and certainty gained?  Some typical answers are revelations from god, observation and reason, consensus, intuition, authority or a healthy mix.   In this case, a person that answers observation and reason would tend to agree with Lindzen and Choi and a person who holds that consensus or authority have more weight would tend to side with the University of California and IPCC model results.  A Person that holds god or intuition as the best means to knowledge could decide in favor of either position.

It is possible that the analysis performed by Lindzen and Choi was mistaken or that the data was no good.  It is possible that they fudged the numbers or are being deceitful in some way.  The same can be said about the University of California report or even the IPCC report.  It is important to remember however, that these studies are not performed in a vacuum.  There are real consequences for authors and they are held accountable to the institutions and people they serve.  The spotlight is on and their credibility and jobs are on the line.  The work is also easily checked by other scientists.  Neither party is fudging numbers, they simply reached different conclusions based on their respective methods.   Lindzen and Choi used observations, and then reason to form conclusions.  The modelers used a combination of observation and assumed factors to formulate models which mimicked past climate activity.  Based on this, the models were expected to make accurate predictions of future climate activity.

Observation of reality was the proof for Lindzen and Choi’s arguments.  The assumption of positive feedback used in the models was contradicted by observations of negative climate feedback.  The observations can be repeated and the analysis can be checked by any scientist.  Even the modelers agree that observation is the ultimate judge, seeing as how they “corrected” the models to match observations in the past.  So what?  Why does it matter that much anyway?  Wouldn’t it still be a good idea to reduce carbon emissions just in case? No, and here is why.

Copenhagen, December 2009

Many of the factors that affect global temperatures are known, including CO₂ concentrations.  On the other hand, observations, such as those from the ERBE, demonstrate that the influence of any of the factors has not yet been  established.  This means that the nature of global climate is unknown and therefore actions taken to drive climate change in one direction or another cannot accomplish the desired goal.  Yet, the political leaders of the world are meeting and attempting to create a governing body that will force every person on Earth into action.  The global government proposes to collect taxes, redistribute wealth, regulate new and old industry and enforce policy without anyone’s vote.  Below is a glimpse of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as it was drafted on September 15, 2009.

The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following…(UNFCCC Annex I par. 38)

“The government will be ruled by the (Conference of the Parties) COP.”(UNFCCC Annex 1 par.38)  Whatever the COP actually is, it is not a government by the people and for the people.  A word check was unable to find the words “freedom” or “vote” in the entire document.

The funds will be raised by the financial mechanism. “ The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows…”(UFCCC Annex I par. 38)   “[Providing financial support shall be additional to developed countries’ ODA targets.] [Mandatory contributions from developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II should form the core revenue stream for meeting the cost of adaptation in conjunction with additional sources including share of proceeds from flexible mechanisms.]” (UNFCCC Annex II par. 41) What does that mean?

(c) [Levies on CO2 emissions [from Annex-I Parties [in a position to do so]];]

(d) [Taxes on carbon-intensive products and services from Annex I Parties;]

(e) [[Levies on] [Shares of proceeds from measures to limit or reduce emissions from] international [aviation] and maritime transport;]

(f) Shares of proceeds on the clean development mechanism (CDM), [extension of shares of proceeds to] joint implementation and emissions trading;

(g) [Levies on international transactions [among Annex I Parties];]

(h) [Fines for non-compliance [of Annex I Parties and] with commitments of Annex I Parties and Parties with commitments inscribed in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties);] (UNFCCC Annex II par. 41)

Regulation and enforcement of the laws created by the COP will be handled by the “…facilitative mechanism which will include… an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body… and an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries.”(UNFCCC Annex I par 38)

People who do not understand the nature of global climate are attempting to direct global temperature.  Even worse, these political leaders, who disregard the idea that “nature to be commanded must be obeyed”, are apparently in a position to regulate global resources, production and wealth distribution.   If they think they can drive global climate without understanding it, how much effort are they expected to put into understanding human nature before they set up a world government to drive men’s actions.  They do not understand that humans require the freedom to act on their rational judgment in order to choose values, create wealth and prosper.  Man is the rational animal, not the obedient animal.  Do to a lack of respect for reality and reason based on reality; they are leading us into a pit of despair.  It will not randomly work out.

References

GOVINDASAMY, B., S. THOMPSON, A. MIRIN, M. WICKETT, K. CALDEIRA, and C. DELIRE. “Increase of carbon cycle feedback with climate.” TELLUS 57B (2005): 153-63. Blackwell Munksgaard.

LINDZEN, R. and CHOI, Y. “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data”  GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS (2009) Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate; Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

IPCC, Workgroup I: The Scientific Basis.   http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/052.htm

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,  FCCC/ANGLCA/2009/INF.2, (September 15, 2009)  http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf

…this is what I like.

Essay: Zadie Smith on the essay. (bonus: Joan Didion anno 1967)

Perspective: everything’s amazing, nobody’s happy. (bonus: very funny!)

Philosophy: The Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand.

Radio: Weekend Woman’s Hour

Tune #1: Tougher than the Rest with Bruce Springsteen (bonus: fashion anno 1988)

Tune #2: Pata Pata with Miriam Makeba

Poem: “Spellbound” by Emily Brontë:

The night is darkening round me,
The wild winds coldly blow;
But a tyrant spell has bound me
And I cannot, cannot go.

The giant trees are bending
Their bare boughs weighed with snow.
And the storm is fast descending,
And yet I cannot go.

Clouds beyond clouds above me,
Wastes beyond wastes below;
But nothing dear can move me;
I will not, cannot go.

Painting #1: Waterhouse – St Eulalia

Painting #2: Millais – Blow, Blow Thou Winter Wind

Painting #3: Friedrich – Winter Landscape

James Farmelant und Mark Lindley haben in der Ausgabe No 32 (Okt 2009) von der Gesellschaft für kritische Philosophie Nürnberg e.V. herausgegebenen Zeitschrift “Aufklärung und Kritik” einen Artikel über Sechs prominente amerikanische Freidenker veröffentlicht, darunter Ayn Rand. Leider unterliegt der Artikel einigen, für eine akademische Publikation regelrecht peinlichen, Missverständnissen — wobei man sich grundsätzlich fragen darf, was der wissenschaftliche Status eines Aufsatzes ist, der aus Wikipedia zitiert (Vgl. Fußnote 37), und weshalb soetwas von einer sonst seriösen Zeitschrift publiziert wird. Jedenfalls sah ich mir genötigt, mit einem kurzen Leserbrief an den Herausgeber zu reagieren:

Sehr geehrter Herr Walther,

bitten fassen Sie diese eMail als einen Leserbrief zum Artikel “Sechs prominente amerikanische Freidenker” von Farmelant & Lindley auf. Ich möchte an diesem Artikel Kritik üben, insbesondere an seiner Abhandlung Ayn Rands, und hier dem Motto der Zeitschrift getreu sozusagen für etwas Aufklärung sorgen.

Der Artikel ist leider in mehreren Punkten auf geradezu peinliche Weise inakkurat. Ich möchte nur einige besonders offensichtliche Punkte ansprechen, die eigentlich nicht passieren dürften, wenn man Rand tatsächlich gelesen hat.

1.) Bereits die Eingangscharakterisierung der Position Rands auf S. 42 ist falsch. Hier wird behauptet, Rand lehne zusammen mit dem Altruismus jegliche Formen sozialer Fürsorge als “nicht-menschlich” (was immer das heißen soll — ich schätze, im Deutschen nennt man das eher “menschenfeindlich”) ab. Dem ist nicht so. Als Vertreterin einer tugendethischen Konzeption, die in der aristotelischen Traditionslinie steht, hat sie einen erweiterten Begriff des Egoismus, bei dem das Wohl anderer als ein zentraler Faktor für das eigene Gedeihen in die eigenen Interessen und das eigene Wohl inkorporiert ist. Weil Beziehungen zu anderen Menschen für mein eigenes Gedeihen gut, förderlich und notwendig sind — sowohl in materieller Hinsicht (z.B. Güteraustausch), als auch in psychologischer (z.B. Freundschaft, Liebe) — ist es moralisch gut und richtig, dass ich anderen, vor allem meinem konkreten Lebensumfeld nahestehenden Menschen gegenüber fürsorglich auftrete und auch in gewisser Hinsicht Verantwortung innerhalb der Gemeinschaft übernehme, nämlich insofern es gilt, das Zusammenleben auf eine für alle gedeihliche Weise zu organisieren. Und dies durchaus nicht in einer rein instrumentellen Weise, sondern aus Prinzipienüberlegungen (vgl. T. Smith: Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics, Cambridge 2006, 287ff.). Überhaupt sagt ihre Verwendung des Egoismusbegriffs noch nichts über den konkreten Inhalt des Eigeninteresses aus. Sie stellt nur korrekterweise fest, dass diejenigen Verhaltensweisen und Tugenden, die dem Menschen im Rahmen einer normativen Beschreibung seiner Lebensform als gedeihlich zugeschrieben werden, sein Eigeninteresse konstituieren, und der Mensch dieses verfolgen soll, um seiner Natur gemäß als Mensch zu leben. Und wenn die menschliche Lebensform soziale Bindungen einschließt, so verlangt auch Rands Egoismus deren Pflege.

2.) Auf S. 59 behauptet der Autor, Rand leite die unabhängige Existenz der Außenwelt aus dem Identitätsgesetz ab. Auch dies ist Unsinn. Zwar behauptet Rand, dass es soetwas wie eine eine objektive, denkunabhängige Realität gibt, jedoch wird sie nicht aus dem Identitätsgesetz gefolgtert. Vielmehr betrachtet Rand den Satz “Existence exists” als ein denknotwendiges Axiom, insofern als jeder Versuch seiner Negation es bereits implizit voraussetzt. Das Identitätsgesetz wiederum betrachtet sie als eines von mehreren Korrolaren des Existenzaxioms: zu sein, heißt, etwas Bestimmtes zu sein.

3.) Die Behauptungen auf S. 60, Rand hätte in ihrer Spätphilosophie verschiedene Formen von Religion unterschieden, die einen dabei gutgeheißen und die anderen Verworfen, ist falsch und basiert auf einem Missverständnis, vermutlich aufgrund oberflächlicher Lektüre. Für Rand bildet Glauben im Sinne eines Fürwahrhaltens ohne bzw. gegen jedwede Evidenz die Essenz _jedweder_ Religion, und sie kritisierte Religion daher aus verschiedenen Gründen als vernunft- und damit lebensfeindlich. In ihrer Funktion als Kommentatorin der zeitgenössischen amerikanischen Kultur stellte sie allerdings fest, dass Religion in den Vereinigten Staaten — und im Westen generell seit Renaissance und Aufklärung — sehr säkularisiert und im eigentlichen Sinne _unreligiös_ geworden sei. Es hat sich sozusagen eine Art “Kirche am Sonntag”-Haltung ausgebreitet, bei der der charakteristische erkenntnistheoretische Operationsmodus von Religion — das Glauben — in wenige, abgelegene Bereiche zurückgedrängt wurde, während das praktische, alltägliche Leben nun säkularisiert und tendenziell eher von Vernunftüberlegungen bestimmt ist. In diesem Sinne ist auch das angeführte Zitat zu verstehen, das materialistische Einstellungen bei “religiösen Lehrern” konstatiert.

4.) Der mehrmalige Verweis auf Alan Greenspan als eine Art Exekutor Rand’scher Ideologie mit fatalen Folgen ist unverständlich. Zwar hat Greenspan in den 1960er und 70er Jahren zeitweise dem engeren Kreis um Rand angehört. Wenn man sich allerdings vor Augen führt, dass Rand staatliche Zentralbanken für moralisch korrupt erachtete und einen Goldstandard befürwortete, mag man jedoch in Zweifel ziehen, dass Greenspan in seiner Politik als Notenbankchef tatsächlich durch ihre Lehren geleitet wurde. Mir scheint hier eher der Versuch einer Diskreditierung durch “guilt by association” vorzuliegen.

5.) Generell ist der offenkundig voreingenommene und stellenweise schneidend ironische Tonfall des Artikels einer wissenschaftlichen Publikation nicht angemessen. Die inhaltliche Charakterisierung der Romane Rands ist aufs Abenteuerlichste verzerrt und scheint eher tendenziösen Absichten zu folgen. Quellen und aktuelle Sekundärliteratur werden so gut wie nicht berücksichtigt. Die Übersetzung des Artikels ist stilistisch schlecht und inhaltlich teilweise fehlerhaft (vgl. die Vernunftdefinition auf S. 59).

Ich sehe es nicht ohne ein gewisses Bedauern, dass eine respektable Publikation wie Aufklärung & Kritik Arbeiten von solch niederer Qualität abdruckt. Ich würde es stark befürworten, dass, sollten Sie noch einmal erwägen, etwas über Ayn Rand zu veröffentlichen, auch einen Autor auswählen, der tatsächlich etwas von Rand versteht.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

A civilização é o progresso em direção a uma sociedade de privacidade. Toda a existência do selvagem é pública, governada pelas leis da sua tribo. A civilização é o processo de libertação do homem relativamente aos homens.

Ayn Rand

One of my favorite films is Reds, starring Warren Beatty, Diane Keaton, and a host of other big name stars.  Since my awakening to the phony Left/Right paradigm, I no longer subscribe to its political message, but I still find it to be good story and ‘instructional’, as well. 

In this clip from the 1981 film, John Reed (portrayed by Warren Beatty), is an American journalist and communist that finds himself swept up in the October 1917 Revolution.  When urged by a comrade to speak at a worker’s rally, he balks.  Feeling somewhat as an outsider, he replies, “But I have no credentials to speak here.”  His Russian friend disagrees…

Warning: Adult scenes

An important lesson is given here.  Your authority to act is not dependent upon credentials.  No diplomas or certificates are required.  Your authority to act is not contingent upon approval from others, or their permission.  You make your own ’credentials’ when you decide to translate your desire into action.  John Reed’s credentials were earned, as the old saying goes, when he suited up and showed up.

Brick by brick, the foundation for the New World Order has been laid for the past several hundred years.  The international financial elite will soon attempt to place the capstone of open “global governance” atop their pyramidical control grid.  Our work to destroy the New World Order must go further than to temporarily thwart their planners and architects.  We must smash the foundation as well as the superstructure.

The foundation that supports the New World Order is composed of the masses – you and me.  Like it, or not, we are the supporting foundation, not only in the economic terms of financial feudalism, but in psycho-spiritual terms as well.  We have allowed the elite to construct walls in our minds.  Walls that keep us in a psychic comfort zone of complacent acceptance of our own victimization.  Our complacency, fear, and ignorance, are the source of their power.  Tear down these walls. 

We do not need permission.  We owe no explanation. 

“Rights are not given.  They are taken.”  Ayn Rand  

 —————————————————————-

John Reed, author of Ten Days that Shook the World, a book that today remains the standard firsthand account of the Russian Revolution, is buried in Moscow.  If you’re interested in early 20th century political history, the film is well worth the time.  And it’s entertaining too.
More info on Reds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reds_(film)

Ya se encuentra disponible el nuevo número de la revista Laissez Faire, publicación producida por la Sociedad para la Libertad Individual y Laissez Faire Books. Abre la edición Johan Norberg con un artículo titulado, Financial Fiasco: The Fed, Politicians, Easy Money and Bursting Bubbles. El catálogo de invierno está dedicado a la obra de Ayn Rand e incluye algunas novedades.

liberalismoonline@gmail.com

In my global marketing strategy class the other day, instructor David Thomsen showed two pretty shocking videos in discussing public relations. One was on the Bhopal disaster of 1984. The Bhopal gas tragedy is the worst industrial disaster in human history, leaving 8,000 dead within hours of the gas leak in the Indian city, 25,000 dead since the disaster, hundreds of thousands adversely affected by the chemicals, continuing side effects on humans and other animals, and environmental damage that persists today. The “compensation” the video talks about was less than $900 per injured person. Union Carbide, the corporation responsible for the leak, denied any culpability. The Dow Chemical Company later bought them in 2001. The CEO of the company at the time, Warren Anderson, was charged with homicide and manslaughter. He left the country and fled to the United States, where he currently resides, and refuses to appear before Indian courts.

The second video was a report by Australia’s Channel 7 revealing that Nike, a corporation marred by its human rights violations and despicable working conditions in Third World countries, continued to engage in forced labor practices in sweatshops in Malaysia as late as 2008. Note this is after they claimed to have cleaned up their act.

There is a simple reason these types of actions, and others like them, occur, which is what’s called the profit motive. When profit-maximization is the creed, what happens to people is only incidental. There is a whole generation of businesspeople who have been influenced by the work of people like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand, whose principle message is that the only socially responsible (and indeed morally right) action is to maximize self-interest by way of profits. These ideas are justified by ethical egoism, a morally bankrupt and vacuous theory that says the only morally right actions are actions that maximize the acting agent’s self-interest. That’s what’s called “the moral economy.” The right, in their usual perversion of Smithian theory, always tries to defend this on economic grounds, appealing to what they refer to as “the invisible hand,” a term meant to describe the unintentional benefit to society that corporations bring about through acting in their self-interest. Adam Smith, of course, only used the term once in his The Wealth Nations and only as a “casual metaphor” for risk-adverse merchants wary of foreign exchange who inadvertently help their own countries. Smith, like many of the other great anti- and pre-capitalist Enlightenment thinkers, denounced greed and selfishness. As most serious scholars of Smith recognize, Smith never saw the “invisible hand” as a reality or “law” of markets. As Joseph Stiglitz puts it, “the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.”

As ethical egoism posits to us, there is a certain calculus all moral agents are supposed to undertake in their actions. Namely, they are to ascertain which actions will ultimately lead to profit maximization and undertake those actions. For Union Carbide, that meant denying responsibility for the worst industrial disaster in human history and paying its victims an inconsequential and truly unjust fraction of its coffers. For Nike, that meant finding the cheapest source of labor and exploiting them in the worst kinds of ways—that is, until they’re caught. And while these might indeed be the profit-maximizing choices, surely nobody agrees they have improved the lot of all. When we ignore the rights of people and the laws that regulate acceptable behavior (as, indeed, ethical egoism asks us to do when it is profitable), the necessary result is an abject and deplorable world. The fact that the far-right advocates the abolition of regulations intended to safeguard against such massive injustices from ever happening is justified, they say, by a certain euphemism they call “market democracy” (the idea that ordinary market participants, like you or me, can shape business behavior—but you more than me, because I’m poor). The sobering reality: Dow’s revenues in 2008 totaled more than $57.5 billion, and over $16.6 billion for Nike.

So long as corporations continue to operate within the framework of this “moral economy,” justified by Friedman, Rand and others, we will continue to witness the tragedies and corruption that we hear about on an everyday basis. What is needed instead, at the most minimal level, is a better consideration for those other than the self, as advocated in theories like stakeholder theory, and better regulations and stiffer penalties to ensure “profit over people” (what Smith described to as “the vile maxim of the masters of mankind”) does not become the norm.

Finally finished the latest Stephen King “Under the Dome.”  This is no mean feat considering it’s 1070 pages long.  I’m not complaining.  I would much rather have a book of this length to tide me over for a week, than a 200 page sprint from a favorite author, that just leaves my begging for more.  My poor husband, my poor children, they all know better. Don’t bother mom when a new Stephen King, Matthew Reilly, Douglas Preston, Lee Child, Jeffery Deaver book comes out.  All parenting, canoodling, cooking, cleaning stops.  (I went to knitting group yesterday, and it took every ounce of strength I had not to bring that damn book)

Being that it’s a very long book, it goes pretty quick.  Not sure if Steve-o is as big of an Ayn Rand fan as I am, but caught some glimmers of “Atlas Shrugged” near the end.  Also very evident is a “Lord of the Flies” mentality that occurs throughout the whole book.  It’s even brought up once.

Midway through the book, a very pleasant appearance from, the one and only, Jack Reacher, of Lee Child fame.  Love this character, and it brought a big smile to my face to have one of my favourite authors use another one of my favourite authors best character in his book.  Makes me wonder…does Stephen call up Lee and say, “Would it be okay if I used this guy in passing in my latest book?”  How does that work?  There are other authors who do this, and I find it fascinating.  If anybody hasn’t read the Lee Child books.  Go for it.  Jack Reacher is the best.  I’d want him on my side.

Back to “Under the Dome”.  Not sure how to classify it, not quite horror, mystery, thriller or sci-fi.  Kind of a mix of all of them.  Huge cast of characters, hard to keep track of, but he does provide you with a character list at the front of the book.  New ground for Mr. King.  Also new, no blurbs on either front or back jacket cover, no picture of Mr. King either.  Interesting? Odd?  You be the judge.  Of course, it takes place in Maine, though not Castle Rock.  After reading some 30 books, I have no desire to ever move to Maine.  If nothing else, the imagination tends to run a little wild there.

If they make this into a movie, let’s just hope not.  No Molly Ringworm, no Gary Sinise, no Jamie Sheridan, though Rob Lowe would make an excellent Baarbie.  Please no made for tv movies.  If necessary have Frank Darabont, or Rob Reiner direct.

Lastly, Tabitha King should be nominated for sainthood.  You’ve got my vote lady.  How you’ve managed for 40 (I think that’s right, I know your oldest daughter and she’s just about my age) yrs, is beyond my comprehension.

I have a staggering stack of books to get to, which shall I chose next?  New Vince Flynn or new Michael Connolly?

“Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history” Noam Chomsky

Ayn Rand was one of, if not, the most mentally disturbed people of the last century – her philosophy has brought untold suffering onto this world, where millions upon millions have died because of her ideas and influence. I rarely despise people, but this kind of seriously fucked up human, who preyed on the weakness of small minded men – disturbing them further – deserves to be remembered for what she was, as the harbinger of the worst kind of human horror ever dealt to mankind.

What’s so disturbing is how cheap her basic philosophy really is and how badly written those books are – I’m still amazed that people this stupid can get such huge followings – of course, I shouldn’t be – I mean, the Bible and the Koran have how many followers?

So the kind of people that bought it were morons to begin with – fair enough.

Still, I have received a total of four death threats from Ayn Rand fans so far – which is 3 more than the ‘I’ll burn in hell for being a fag’ threats from Christians. You’ve got to give props to Rand for that though – she’s created people more sinister than Christians – and that is surely some sort of accomplishment.

“I found her writings intellectually shallow and morally revolting” Noam Chomsky

In the run up to turkey day, I am reposting my three-part piece on Thanksgiving. Here is part one:

If you are looking for a reason to give thanks this Thanksgiving, how about this: give thanks for capitalism! I came across this nifty idea when searching around the internet for “alternative ways to spend Thanksgiving” (as I am one of those crazy radicals that has problems with the holiday.) Anyhow, in so doing, I came across an article that must be read in full to be believed.

If you have an empty stomach, go here to read the full piece, entitled “An American Holiday: The Moral Meaning Behind Thanksgiving.” If your stomach isn’t empty, I would wait to read the piece, unless that is, you want to be cleaning vomit off your keyboard… (Or, if you are one of those troll-types who believes in the American Dream and clings to the idea that Native Americans were ’savage’ and capitalism is the bees knees, well, you can read the piece anytime and, as you do, you can nod in agreement that yes, you, DESERVE to celebrate.)

Anyhow, the Ayn Rand worshipping author of the piece, Debi Ghate, encourages us to celebrate our ‘bountiful harvest’ of  “the affluence and success we’ve gained… the cars, houses and vacations we enjoy… the life-saving medicines we rely on, the stock portfolios we build, the beautiful clothes we buy and the safe, clean streets we live on…the good life.” Granted, Ghate’s piece is from November 2007, and thus predates our current economic meltdown. Even so, it is wildly myopic in its vision of America as “the land of plenty.”

So too is Ghate a tad wrong about American history.  According to her, “This country was mostly uninhabited and wild when our forefathers began to develop the land and build spectacular cities.” Yeah, if you call 10 to 15 million indigenous inhabitants “mostly uninhabited.”

These “forefathers” (uh, do you mean genocidal, power-hungry maniacs?) used “the American spirit to overcome challenges, create great achievements, and enjoy prosperity.” Yeah, if killing, enslaving, and raping is what you call the “American spirit.”

As a proponent of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, this author proclaims “We alone are responsible for our wealth. We are the producers and Thanksgiving is our holiday.” Does she mean, “we are the corporatist bastards who exploit the world’s people and destroy the planet, and Thanksgiving is our day to celebrate this gluttony”?

Now, if you feel a tad bit squeamish about celebrating the wonderful “forefathers” and the glories of corporate capitalism, Ghate has the answer; she insists you DESERVE to celebrate and greed is GOOD. She laments that “We are scolded not to take more than “our share”–whether it is of corporate profits, electricity or pie. We are taught that altruism–selfless concern for others–is the moral ideal. We are taught to sacrifice for strangers, who have no claim to our hard-earned wealth. We are taught to kneel rather than reach for the sky.” Yes, because why should we share the planet? Why should we care about other humans? Damn it, this world is MINE and I don’t give a shit about anyone else. Furthermore, I am eating the whole damn pumpkin pie so screw you! Wow, what a great philosophy. No wonder why the Ayn Rand Institute is so popular.

Ghate continues “morally, one should reach for the sky. One should recognize that the corporate profits, electricity or pie was earned through one’s production–and savor its consumption. Every decision one makes, from what career to pursue to whom to call a friend, should be guided by what will best advance one’s rational goals, interests and, ultimately, one’s life. One should take pride in being rationally selfish–one’s life and happiness depend on it.” Rationally selfish??? Oh my, the ways capitalists find to make their greedy machinations sound moral…

Ghate closes her piece with the claim that “It’s a time to selfishly and proudly say: “I earned this.” Sadly, this is the true, though NOT moral, meaning behind thanksgiving. Thanksgiving truly is a holiday where we rather selfishly celebrate personal bounty (if we are able to do so) while ignoring the historical costs, as well as the present costs, of our individual as well as national bounty. In the posts to follow over the next few days, I will further consider the historical costs as well as the present costs of “US bounty” and how we might better frame the holiday so as not to dishonor the atrocities of the past, condone similar carnage in the present, or perpetuate such myopic, selfish celebrations of US imperialism in the future.

I picked up this short novella with no real idea of its content. I don’t know what I was expecting, but I hadn’t anticipated this dystopian novel of unmatched bleakness.

Equality 7-2521 is the protagonist of this story, in a primitive society of the future where individuality is a crime, and men live only to serve the common good, as dictated by a shadowy council of leaders. In Equality 7-2521 we find a man in whom individuality has neither been bred out, nor quenched; unlike his docile and spiritless ‘brothers.’ However, Equality 7-2521 recognises his uniqueness only as a sin against the collective, having no concept of ego.

The story is narrated by Equality 7-2521, in the form of a secret memorandem written in stolen moments. The language employed is utilitarian and colourless, reflecting the unambiguous and serviceable creeds by which the community lives; the only language Equality 7-2521 knows.

What impressed me most was the author’s success in reducing her characters to self-similar drones, without capacity for original thought. In other dystopian novels which I have read the potential has remained, oppressed, but intact. I also waited in vain for the emergence of those who are more equal than others, but removal of identity is complete, and the system is perfectly collective, and self-replicates without obvious advantage to those who rise to leadership positions.

This is collectivism taken to the absolute extreme, and at the time of writing would have served as a polemic against communist ideals.

As the story follows Equality 7-2521’s struggle to find a workable concept of self it becomes clear that this self-awareness will manifest as a religion.

“As the flames rose, a thing happened which no eyes saw but ours, else we would not be living today. Perhaps it had only seemed to us. But it seemed to us that the eyes of the Transgressor had chose us from the crowd and were looking straight upon us. There was only joy in them, and pride, a pride holier than it is fit for human pride to be.”

Having taken apart collectivism Ayn Rand finally introduces Objectivism, a philosophy and movement of her own design. (I might add that I have spent nearly as much time reading/thinking about the implications of Anthem as it took to read it!) I have read that Ayn Rand was anti-religion too, so maybe I missed something there, but I definitely got the impression that Objectivism in this context equated to a worship of self or ego.

I wonder why this book is not mentioned in the same breath as 1984, Brave New World, or Fahrenheit 451, et al. Perhaps Ayn Rand pushed her dystopia beyond the limits which people are prepared to entertain, but I enjoyed the extremity of her world, a mental exercise which left the reader with plenty to ponder. Although I cannot agree entirely with Ayn Rand’s philosophy, it certainly gave rise to some intriguing lines of speculation.