Archive for March 2004
The Darker Side of Humanity
Go read this story that illustrates the depths of savagery and depravity to which human beings can sink (and, ironically enough, it seems, most often in the name of some religion or other). As the son of a post-WWII German immigrant, I’ve always been sensitive to the tendency to condemn whole national populations on the basis of the evil perpetrated by its worst members. The simple self-evident fact is that most people are good people most of the time, and things like culture, religion, race, gender and so on have little to do with it. It’s more about using one’s mind and taking responsibility for one’s own existence. Still, it’s difficult for me to read a story such as the above and not wonder why in the hell the US has bothered with the likes of Iraq. Speaking collectively, which I try to keep to an absolute minimum, it’s hard to see those people as deserving of a goddamned thing from us.
Read MoreGreed: The “Income Gap” Deconstructed
Everyone knows that the 80s was the “Decade of Greed,” right? Well, of course it was. That’s what it’s called, and as everyone knows, if something is asserted long enough and affirmatively enough, that makes it just so. Or does it? It serves one well, from time-to-time, to revisit old articles and essays written by oneself and others to ascertain their accuracy and relevance years later. Recently, I was involved in a private email dialog where the subject of the “Income Gap” came up. I vaguely recalled an article I had read in Reason years ago and set about to find it. Turns out that the article is now 11 years old, and in my judgment, is just as relevant and accurate now as it was then. See if you agree, and note that there are some typos. Looks like it was scanned and OCRed from printed text. It’s about the 80s as the “Decade of Greed” in general, but includes a great exposé of the myth surrounding the “income gap.” Here’s that part of it. A third factor that supports the view of the ’80s as a decade of greed is an implicit sense of fairness about the distribution…
Read MoreThe Passion Revisited
Since seeing the film and discussing it with others, Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) in particular, I’ve been a bit surprised at how many people believe that the events actually happened as depicted. That is, they believe that the depiction is Biblically accurate. It is not. In fact, it’s way, way off in many respects. However, according to those who have read her works, the film does indeed accurately reflect the “revelations” of a 19th century German nun, Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824). Her book, The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, was published by the church in 1833. Current edditions of this book claim that it is the inspiration behind Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. For what it’s worth, I think it’s important to make distinctions between dramatizations (which have certainly been done many times in film with respect to Biblical events) and that which is claimed to be literally true. Gibson claims that he believes this film to be literally true, and if you believe that as well, then you should know that these “truths” are not found in the Bible, but in the mystical “visions” of someone who lived 200 years ago and some 1800 years…
Read MoreWhy Am I Not Surprised?
For the next installment on the Envy Parade surrounding Martha Stewart’s conviction, notice the last paragraph of this NewsMax article: Stewart had a reputation before the trial as a ruthless businesswoman, and in court she was portrayed as rude, insulting, demanding and cheap. According to testimony, she once threatened to take her business elsewhere because she did not like her brokerage’s telephone hold music. [Emphasis mine.] Let me get this straight. That she may be rude, insulting, demanding, and cheap has something to do with whether she acted to violate “laws,” in fact, as the prosecution claims she acted? (…based on a load of bullshit “laws”—I will add right here—and “lying to prosecutors?” Guess “freedom of speech” doesn’t include lying. What a bunch of mega Fuckheads, which is very plain to see upon the realization that these GovCo Viagra-Gobbling, LawyerSwine, Shithead Prosecutors actually charged her with securities fraud because she stated that she was innocent. In other words, Uncle Fuckface Sam charges you with a crime, and upon verbalizing your innocence, you are guilty of another.). And no, I don’t feel any better, so just shut the fuck up.
Read MoreThe Envy Parade
Imagine that you’ve done nothing particularly remarkable in your life; that you’ve never shocked anyone at all with your depth of insight; that you’ve never drawn a payroll check from your own bank account and handed it to someone else who has you to thank for their livelihood; that nary a single soul in the world can point to a single thing in their vast landscape of life experience that changed their life for the better and has you to thank for it. I believe that Martha Stewart could not begin to imagine any of the above. I believe that most, if not all of the eight jurors in her case can not only begin, but get a good way through such a daydream and be quite comfortable with it, like an old pair of shoes or well worn suit of clothes. But forget about such daydreams. These ordinary people now get to fantasize about how they, in all their mediocrity, have taken down such a giant. I wonder how many more instances of the story of David & Goliath will be told to children at bedtime tonight.
Read MoreAdding Context
I left out some important context in my last post and so have added the following to the third paragraph: Now, for those unfamiliar with the background, both Swann and Beck are market anarchists, as is at least one of the economists (Friedman) writing in the article cited. The other economists, at minimum, advocate a tiny State. The implicit complaint being lodged by Swann and Beck (in my own view) is that these economists justify their anarchism (or “minarchism”), essentially, on doing the most good for the most people (maximum utility) and not on what they see as the underlying fact of man’s individual and unalienable right to his own life without any qualification. I have great sympathy for that complaint.
Read MoreA Unified Theory of Anarchy
Only a few days ago, when I signed up for inclusion on No Treason’s Metablog, I confessed to John T. Kennedy who runs the show over there: I’m a market anarchist, but my views and interests are varied. Worse, I wobble back-&-forth between a utilitarian (Friedman) and moral (Randian) basis for anarchy. Oh well. Then this from Greg Swann, and Billy Beck’s amen. These are two guys I’ve been reading for years, and my particular admiration of Beck is well established on this blog. I probably admire Swann just as much, only I’ve never established a private dialog with him. Now, for those unfamiliar with the background, both Swann and Beck are market anarchists, as is at least one of the economists (Friedman) writing in the article cited. The other economists, at minimum, advocate a tiny State. The implicit complaint being lodged by Swann and Beck (in my own view) is that these economists justify their anarchism (or “minarchism”), essentially, on doing the most good for the most people (maximum utility) and not on what they see as the underlying fact of man’s individual and unalienable right to his own life without any qualification. I have great sympathy for that…
Read MoreGee-Zus-Christ
As an atheist, I often find it odd that two of my favorite “affirmations” are “God-dammit” and “Gee-Zus-Christ.” I guess it’s a sign of how deeply rooted and connected are some of our mythology. I had intended a post on something entirely different, but that will have to wait. I made the mistake of trying to catch up on reading some other blogs that I frequent, and something caught my eye. So, here I go: another post on religion. First, let me clarify what I mean by saying I’m an atheist. I abhor just about everything about the common, everyday “atheist activist” you hear about—whom I really see as “anti-value-ists.” These people have no values that I can detect. They are superficial at best, nihilists at worst. There can be no more malevolent way to spend one’s time than in lobbying against public displays of Nativity scenes, banning artistic displays of the Ten Commandments, or redacting the word “under God” from a national pledge (though I have deeper objections to The Pledge). By atheist, I simply mean that I reject all literal interpretations of all religions. I accept no religious explanation for our origin, and I leave it up to…
Read MoreWhat if they held an election and nobody came?
I first saw that question posed by Billy Beck some years ago on Usenet, and have seen him pose it a few times since. I live in California, so there’s an election today. Just rounding the corner for the homestretch of my morning walk with Rotor, I happen upon my next-door neighbor, Brian. He’s on his way back from the elementary school the next block over where he had just cast his ballot. We exchange the standard set of pleasantries, and then he asks me if I’d voted yet. “Nope. Not going to.” “Oh yeah? How come?” “For one, it’s not worth my time. For another, I find it more than a bit pretentious that I should go and advocate a set of things I wish to be imposed upon others at the expense of others. I prefer to pay my own way.” “Hmm. Well, I don’t think you’re ever going to see that.” “Indeed. I’ll tell you this though. I might someday be persuaded to vote again if they ever put ‘none of the above’ as a choice on every office and issue.” “heh heh—I don’t think you’ll ever see that one either.” And then, after that whole exchange,…
Read MoreThe Passion of the Gay Marriage
What a bizarre time—when the two issues at the forefront of current events are gay marriage and a film that focuses in on the story of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Well, religion and hypocrisy have never made for particularly strange bedfellows, and in the case of gay marriage, this is no exception. Ask yourself: if the State were now proposing laws to limit marriage in ways that would affect traditional couples, would religious activists not be screaming invocations of the Constitution (“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…”)? In fact, you can’t get more fundamental, more basic, more to the essence of religion than the institution of marriage. As such, the State has no business whatever meddling with it, and the religionists of this country should not be so damned stupid (yes, damned stupid) as to have the State come in today and wield its power to fix their “problem” and not realize that tomorrow, that very same power will be used to fix someone else’s “problem” at their expense or pain. The issue of gay marriage is best left up to religious institutions. If some churches wish to recognize such unions, sanction them, and…
Read More