Renee Olstead - Merry Christmas In Love

Lyrics by Marva Marrow, music by Tony Renis, sung by Rene Olstead. Best new Christmas song I've heard in ages.

Sound of Music - Edelweiss

It's a Good Life

Over the Fourth of July weekend the Sci Fi channel was having one of their periodic Twilight Zone marathons. One of the episodes I watched was "It's a Good Life," (season 3, episode 8 of that season) starring the child actor Bill Mumy, who plays Anthony Fremont, a boy with the power to turn people into anything he wanted, or send them "to the cornfield," meaning kill them off. He could do pretty much anything he wanted, and could read people's minds.

So everyone had to think happy thoughts, especially about Anthony himself, or it was off to the cornfield with them. Anthony didn't like singing, so no one could sing, or play any records with singing. Once Anthony decided to make it snow, thereby ruining much of that season's crops, it being the growing season. Anthony's father was initially horrified, but quickly recovered his senses, and admitted that it was good that Anthony made it snow. "That's a good thing you did, Anthony."

Anthony had turned the little town of Peaksville, Ohio into his own little kingdom, of which he was the absolute monarch and God. No one could leave the town, no one else could come in. The rest of the world had, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist. The population was shrinking, since he occasionally got angry with some of the residents and sent them to the cornfield, whence no one returned. The crops suffered from his whims, as did the livestock and other domestic animals, like dogs.

I've seen this episode before. But this time it struck me as an excellent description of life under an absolute ruler, whether a modern dictator, or a traditional monarch. Historically, such rulers had, and the modern ones continue to have, absolute power, including the power of life and death over all of his or her subjects, which could be, and often was, exercised at whim. So the subjects must all live in fear of the ruler, and pretend to be happy and agree with any whim of the ruler, lest they be sent to the cornfield.

So, for example, if a King wanted to levy a huge new tax on "his" people, in order to build a colossal new luxury palace, what could the hapless subject say? "That's a good thing you did, your Majesty."

And if a dictator wants his farmers to stop farming and melt their "extra" pots and pans, and anything else they can find that is made of iron, to increase the country's steel production statistics? And this will cause thousands to die of starvation, since the crops are being neglected? Students, too, and their teachers, must spend all their time searching for scrap metal to melt down, and forget about classes? "That's a good thing you did, Chairman Mao. I'm very happy!"

That last example was something that actually happened in China under Mao, circa 1957. In describing it, Chinese author Jung Chang wrote:

This absurd situation reflected not only Mao's ignorance of how an economy worked, but also an almost metaphysical disregard for reality, which might have been interesting in a poet, but in a political leader with absolute power was quite another matter. One of its main components was a deep-seated contempt for human life. (from Wild Swans, by Jung Chang)

That's a perfect description of Anthony, absolute ruler of Peaksville, Ohio. And also of Kim Jong-il. And it represents everything Hugo Chavez aspires to be, as well.

The episode also shows one character who refuses to submit to this pathetic slave existence. He starts singing in Anthony's face, and telling him exactly what a monster he is. Anthony begins threatening him with the cornfield. The rebel then pleads with the other victims to take advantage of Anthony while he is distracted by this rebellion, and attack him. But no one else does, and the rebel is sent to the cornfield. This also is similar to life under a dictatorship. The bravest ones are the first to die, or end up in prison, because they agree with Patrick Henry. But most people simply submit like sheep, and go on living as slaves.

Democracy: The Modern Idol

The Stimulus:

In a post ( http://www.icahnreport.com/report/2008/06/corporate-democ.html ) to his blog on June 18, Carl Icahn wrote about "the myth" of corporate democracy. He complains that "many corporate boards and managers are doing an abysmal job." He believes this is a result of poor corporate governance, and claims that "the average shareholder can do nothing about it." Further, "It is the board’s responsibility to hold a CEO accountable, and remove the CEO if he or she is not producing results," but this often does not happen, writes Icahn, because "boards are often too lazy and/or passive to rock the boat, especially since the company will continue to pay and pamper and even indemnify them under almost any circumstances."

"Worst of all," he writes, "the board itself is not made accountable because corporate board elections are generally a joke." This is because " . . . in corporate America there are no true elections. It is tyranny parading as democracy . . . Perhaps, with enough public support, the lawmakers and regulators will take note." (Emphasis added.)

Icahn also quoted Winston Churchill, implying that political governance and corporate governance are one and the same: "To paraphrase Winston Churchill, 'democracy might not be the greatest system there is but it is the greatest system mankind has invented so far.' "

And the Response:

In politics, democratic elections allow the citizens to choose representatives to run the day to day business of the government. What those representatives may do, however, is strictly limited by the US Constitution. We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. In a Democracy, a majority could vote to do anything under the sun. It is mob rule. In a Republic, the rights of the individual are protected from violation by majorities. Thank the Founding Fathers we live in a Republic, and not a Democracy.

A corporation, however, is not the same as a political government. It does not exist to protect individual rights. It exists to make a profit. It draws up a business plan to do so, and anyone who wants in can buy shares of the company's stock, assuming there are shares for sale, at a price they can afford. In buying the company's stock, the investor agrees to abide by the company's rules. Including any rules about electing boards of directors. There is no guarantee he will make money on his investment.

No doubt there are CEOs and boards of directors that do abysmal jobs. But Icahn's claim that the average shareholder can do nothing about it is not true. At the very least, if a shareholder does not like what the board or CEO are doing, he can sell his shares in the company. If he prefers not to sell, he can vote (either in person, or by proxy) for directors he thinks will do a better job. The fewer shares he has, the less voice he has in such elections. Which is what he agreed to when he bought the shares in the first place. That is contractual justice.

Evidently Icahn is not satisfied with contractual justice, but instead wants government interference in the economy, like any statist. Odd, for a man whose blog is headed by a statement about fighting tyranny.

It is not clear exactly what Icahn wants the government to do in this particular intervention. His statement that "in corporate America there are no true elections. It is tyranny parading as democracy," suggests that he doesn't like how boards are elected. If that is so, he should either not have bought stock in those companies in the first place, or he should sell his shares, or he should work, in accordance with the company's rules, to get the rules changed. The one thing he should not do is appeal to the government to interfere in a business enterprise. That is not within a government's rightful sphere of influence. It is a common tactic, though, of people who can't get what they want legitimately, to try to get it illegitimately - through the government.

At the end of his post on corporate democracy, Icahn wrote "I will discuss in future entries how simple it [removing terrible management] can be and what has constrained us from taking action." Perhaps in these future entries he will suggest legitimate ways, and leave the government out of the equation. Let us hope so, at any rate.

Secretariat: A Hero of a Horse

In the late '60s and early '70s, America was embroiled in Vietnam and the Watergate scandal. Quoting Ayn Rand's paean to Apollo 11: "For thirty years or longer, the newspapers had featured nothing but disaster, catastrophes, betrayals, the shrinking stature of men, the sordid mess of a collapsing civilzation; their voice had become a long, sustained whine, the megaphone of failure . . . Now, for once, the newspapers were announcing a human achievement, were reporting on a human triumph, were reminding us that man still exists and functions as man," (from Apollo 11, in The Voice of Reason, page 167).

I was a seven year old child at the time of Apollo 11. It is still one of the earliest and fondest memories of my youth. A less pleasant memory was the televised hearings about the Watergate scandal, some years later.

Then, in 1973, along came Secretariat. I knew nothing of horse racing. I was unaware there hadn't been a Triple Crown winner in a quarter of a century. But there was a buzz about this horse that was impossible to ignore. In 1972 he had won "Horse of the Year" as a two year old, a highly unusual feat. As a three year old in 1973, he would be competing for the Triple Crown, awarded to a horse that wins the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness, and the Belmont Stakes.

And what a beautiful horse. Chestnut hued, dubbed Big Red, he was admired as often for his beauty as for his strength, speed, spirit, and endurance.

Secretariat won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness by two or three lengths each. He would generally start slow out of the gate, and then blow past the other horses with a burst of speed that made it look like the other horses were standing still.

But the Belmont Stakes is the test of champions. It is longer than the other two legs of the Triple Crown, and calls for speed and endurance, as well as an intelligent strategy. Secretariat, as usual, was slow out of the gate. But he quickly recovered, and was galloping neck and neck with the leader, Sham, the horse that had come in second place in both the Kentucky Derby, and the Preakness. After jockeying back and forth for a while, Secretariat finally left Sham behind, and continued stretching his lead until, by the end of the race, he was fully 31 lengths ahead of the next horse- a feat immortalized in the photograph at the head of this post.

America had its first Triple Crown winner in a quarter of a century. Before the Belmont Stakes, Secretariat appeared on the cover of Time magazine, Newsweek, and Sports Illustrated, all in the same week. Everyone loved Secretariat. Once again, the media were filled with stories of a glorious achievement, pushing the doom and gloom stories off the front page, if only for a while.

Secretariat was the product of careful breeding, and was trained, groomed, managed, and ridden to be the best that he could be. He was a magnificent animal, and his greatness was guided and enhanced by human intelligence. We admired him for his achievements, his desire to excel, to be the "first among equals," to be the best.

No one ever suggested he should slow down so as not to embarass his brothers. We were free to admire his superiority over his peers. For those of us who love a hero, Secretariat was living proof that they could exist, and glory in their own existence.



http://tinyurl.com/4djwhv

Suicide by Environmentalism

Our dependence on Middle East oil is a common object of ridicule. The critics of this dependence are generally the same people who caused the dependence in the first place - environmentalists. They have placed so many areas of America off limits to drilling - ANWAR, coastal waters, etc. - that we are left with no choice but to import oil from elsewhere.

But logic was never a strong suit among environmentalists. Consider the recent vote to continue restrictions on off shore drilling. The Democrats trotted out one of their standard excuses for not allowing more drilling:

"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," said [House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis], noting that no matter how U.S. oil sources are pursued “we still have a tiny portion of the world (oil) supply.” http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/house-panel-defeats-coastal-drilling-expansion/1233/

Suppose for a moment that everyone, everywhere, took that attitude. Then no one would ever drill for oil except Saudi Arabia, and everyone would be 100% dependent upon them for their oil. That is the "logic" underlying the Democrat/environmentalist restrictions on drilling for oil. By that twisted logic, Americans should never have extracted any oil in this country at all, since we were never going to have more than a small percentage of the world supply.

But even that is giving the Democrats too much credit. There are enormous amounts of oil available from oil shale in this country, over and above all the oil waiting to be tapped off shore.

But environmentalists would rather fantasize about alternative energy sources like wind and solar - when they are not obstructing even those sources of energy, as eyesores. Last I heard, no one is stopping them from developing those energy sources themselves.

The free market could provide us with all the energy we need. If we had a free market.

Red Wings in Action

Just a few pictures of the current group of Red Wings on the ice, plus one of Vlad for auld lang syne . . .

Zetterberg:

Filppula:

Datsyuk:

Datsyuk and Zetterberg:

Lidstrom:

Vladimir Konstantinov, the warrior:

Detroit Red Wings

For the fourth time in the last eleven years, the Detroit Red Wings have won the Stanley Cup, awarded to the champion of the National Hockey League. Since 1990, when Sergei Fedorov joined a lineup that already included Steve Yzerman, the Red Wings have been among the most skilled teams in the NHL.

Although Fedorov is no longer a Red Wing, he is indicative of the success of the franchise. The draft that netted Feodorov for the Red Wings is one of the greatest drafts in NHL history. That same draft for the Red Wings included Center Mike Sillinger and Defenseman Bob Boughner, who both went on to solid NHL careers. It included Winger Dallas Drake, who started with the Red Wings, was traded, and finally returned to the Wings as a free agent this season. It included Vladimir Konstantinov, a magnificent Defenseman who helped the Wings win the Stanley Cup in 1997, alongside his defense partner, Nicklas Lidstrom, who was also part of that same 1989 draft. Lidstrom and Fedorov will be in the Hall of Fame. Konstantinov almost certainly would have been too, had his career not been cut short by a tragic car accident, right after the Wings won the Stanley Cup in 1997. Picking three Hall of Famers in one draft is a good way to rejuvenate a franchise.

Eventually the Wings added three more skilled Russians to their lineup: Slava Kozlov, a skilled young Winger; Slava Fetisov, an aging but skilled defenseman, and Center Igor Larionov, a puck control specialist, as so many Russians were. Coach Scotty Bowman put these five together as a unit, the Russian Five, and they were amazing to watch. They played the same puck control game of the old Soviet national teams.

Eventually, all five of the Russian Five were lost to the Wings, to free agency, retirement, or career ending injury. But the Wings continued to play a puck control, or puck possession game, unlike any other team in the NHL. Because the Wings were so consistently good, they always ended up in poor drafting position. They haven't had a top ten pick since about 1991. Normally they pick at the very bottom of the round, about 20th or lower. So they never have the opportunity to draft the "can't miss" prospects like the Crosby's, the Malkin's, the Ovechkin's, etc.

That doesn't mean they don't draft great players, however. They do. They just have to look harder and smarter to find them. But find them they do. Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg, Tomas Holmstrom, Johan Franzen, Valtteri Filppula, all selected in the third round or later, all star players in the NHL. Datsyuk and Zetterberg, in my opinion, are the two most complete forwards in the NHL. And Nicklas Lidstrom is the best defenseman.

There are now seven Swedes on the Red Wings roster, with more on the way. The Wings are a heavily European weighted team. This is one of the results of having to pick lower in the draft, when all the best North American prospects are already gone. But it is also a result of a deliberate policy of favoring skill over size, which is the opposite of how most teams draft.

The results speak for themselves. Four Stanley Cups in eleven years. People used to accuse the Wings of buying the Stanley Cup, since they had one of the highest payrolls in the league. But when the salary cap was put in place, and the Wings' payroll was cut in half, they continued to be the class of the NHL, consistently finishing first in their division, and advancing well into the playoffs. And now, winning the Stanley Cup again.

The Red Wings are the model franchise of the NHL.

The Volga Boatman

In her movie diary for 1926, Ayn Rand gave the Cecil B. De Mille silent movie The Volga Boatman a rating of 5+, the highest rating on her scale. The story is set during the Russian Revolution, and revolves around a love triangle. The woman is a Princess, who is loved by a Russian noble, and by a revolutionary leader. On that level, the plot is similar to AR's We the Living, and no doubt to many other novels.

As in We the Living, the revolutionary, named Feodor, is idealistic, although not nearly as intellectual as Andrei Taganov. The Russian noble, named Dmitri, is brave and arrogant, like Leo. The Princess, named Vera, does not resemble Kira particularly, but does have similarities with another Ayn Rand creation - Dominique Francon.

One scene that emphasizes this connection occurs near the beginning of the movie. Princess Vera hears some Volga boatmen singing as they pass near her home. The Volga boatmen are peasant laborers who pull boats against the current, up the Volga river, by means of ropes harnessed to their bodies. One of the singers in particular catches her ear, and she goes down with Dmitri to investigate who it is that sounds like "the soul of Russia."

So the wealthy young woman goes to look at the laborers, and sees the man she had heard singing, as he and the other boatmen are taking a rest break and a drink of water. She stares at the man, Feodor, in open admiration - and he stares right back, as openly as she. This recalled to my mind the scene in The Fountainhead in which Dominique went to her father's quarry and stared at Roark, who stopped working and stared back.

Then Dmitri intervened, and ended up giving Feodor two lashes across the face with his whip, leaving nasty cuts each time. Feodor took the blows without flinching. This too recalls the same sequence in The Fountainhead, although there it was Dominique who wielded the whip, and not a rival lover.

I don't know, of course, but it seems likely to me that AR wrote that scene as something of an homage to the similar scene in The Volga Boatman.

The movie itself claims to take no side in the conflict of the Russian Revolution, although it pretty clearly does favor the revolutionary side. Still, the heroes all run afoul of the revolution at one point or another.

I recommend the movie, which is available now on DVD.

Silent Movies

Silent movies seem to be an acquired taste. I usually have a hard time watching them. They seem hopelessly archaic compared to modern movies. But while the technology of silent films certainly is archaic, the stories themselves are not. And since these movies were made in the early twentieth century, they are less infected with all the maladies of the modern intellectual and literary world. Silent movies are closer in time to the era of Romantic art - Cyrano de Bergerac was published in 1897 - and so some of that spirit exists in them which no longer survives in the modern world.

Among the silent movies that were enjoyed by the arch-romanticist, Ayn Rand, were The Indian Tomb (Part 1: The Mission of the Yogi; Part 2: The Tiger of Bengal), The Nibelungen (Part 1: Siegfried; Part 2: Kriemhild's Revenge), The Thief of Baghdad, The Mark of Zorro (and many other silent films starring Douglas Fairbanks), The Oyster Princess, and The Volga Boatman. All of the above movies are availabe on DVD now, and more seem to be coming on the market all the time.

One I recently watched is The Winning of Barbara Worth, starring Ronald Colman, Vilma Banky, and Gary Cooper. This movie still has something of the heroic spirit of nineteenth century America in it, when American businessmen and engineers were taming the vast expanses of the West. Colman is an Eastern engineer who comes out West to build a dam to bring water to a desert wilderness and bring it to fruitful life. Gary Cooper is a native Westerner who is initially unimpressed with the soft Easterner. Vilma Banky is the woman they both adore.

The financier who funds the building of the dam is a villain who is willing to rob and kill to defeat his competitors. When this becomes clear, Colman switches sides, and convinces another Eastern financier to rescue the project (which suffered through a natural disaster), by appealing to his self interest, as well as his good will.

Colman is the hero of the story, who transforms the desert into farmland, against the natural obstacles, and against the man made interference. Cooper is a rugged Westerner who helped him achieve that goal, in spite of their rivalry over Vilma Banky.

It's a benevolent silent movie I can recommend. It's not a bad starting place if you want to begin exploring the world of silent movies.

Dae Jang Geum

This review contains some spoilers.

I recently finished watching a wonderful Korean television drama called Dae Jang Geum, aka Jewel in the Palace. It is available on DVD, in the original Korean with English subtitles. In briefest summary, the drama tells the story of Jang Geum, an orphaned girl who rises from the lowest classes of Korean society to become the personal physician of the King.

The struggles Jang Geum faces along the way are enough to crush the spirit of a normal man or woman. But Jang Geum is an extraordinary woman. No opponent can overcome her indomitable spirit, no obstacle or setback can impede her progress for long. She sets her sights on the goals she wants to achieve, and she moves toward them with determination, intelligence, and passion, without ever compromising her integrity or honor. She is a true Heroine of Romantic art.

The series starts out with several episodes showing Jang Geum as a young girl, around 8 years old. From her first appearance on the screen, she conquers the viewer’s heart completely. Never have I seen such an adorable little girl. Her smile outshines the sun. But then she wins the viewer’s mind as well, when she displays her passionate intellectual curiosity, her stubborn determination, her courage and integrity.

With episode six, the story moves ahead in time. Jang Geum is a young woman of 20 or so. Under the tutelage of Lady Han, Jang Geum has become one of the most promising kitchen ladies of the palace. Her only rival is Keum Young, whose family has produced the last five Head Kitchen Ladies of the palace. One of Jang Geum’s goals is to become the Head Kitchen Lady. But Keum Young’s aunt, Lady Choi, will stop at nothing to keep that office in her family’s possession.

And so Jang Geum and Lady Han are subjected to repeated attempts by the Choi clan to discredit and defeat them, by fair means or foul. Neither Lady Han nor Jang Geum ever stoop to their level, regardless of consequence. Several times their lives hang in the balance. But they will achieve their goals with honor, or not at all.

One of the things which sets Jang Geum apart from all others is her intellectual curiosity. While others are content to follow whatever was done in the past, as passed down in books or by word of mouth, Jang Geum insists on determining for herself what is best through experimentation and logical thought, even if this goes against what others are doing, or have done in the past, or against the book authorities. Both in her cooking, and later in her medical practice, she uses the scientific method of testing ideas with experiments, and of gathering evidence out in the field, whether that meant studying all the herbs in the vicinity, or testing the water, or examining patients and their symptoms and observing their reactions to various medical prescriptions.

Another strand of the story involves a Royal Guard of the scholar-official class, Min Jeong Ho, who falls in love with Jang Geum. Like Jang Geum and Lady Han, Min Jeong Ho is a man of honor and integrity. His love for Jang Geum is a virtually hopeless romance, because court ladies such as Jang Geum are forbidden romantic relationships with anyone other than the King. If the King never shows any interest in them, then they will have to live their entire life without the love of a man. Jang Geum, however, does fall in love with Min Jeong Ho, and their struggle to resolve this dilemma is one of the major value conflicts of the story.

Complicating their relationship further, Jang Geum’s rival, Keum Young, is also in love with Min Jeong Ho. It is no light infatuation, but a love which will change the entire course of Keum Young’s life in ways that are heartbreaking to see unfold.

When Jang Geum transforms herself into a physician, she begins to have regular contact with the King. To the King’s credit, he too falls in love with Jang Geum. But to make Jang Geum his concubine - the King already has a Queen - would ruin her happiness, and the King discovers this. This is another of the dramatic value conflicts that must somehow be resolved.

Dae Jang Geum is so full of dramatic value conflicts I can’t begin to touch on them all. The contrast between Jang Geum’s way of resolving her conflicts, and the way others do, highlights her larger than life, heroic spirit and integrity. Some of the characters run away from conflicts; some are not strong enough and give in, and are weighed down with guilt; some resort to dishonorable methods to get their way; only Jang Geum and Min Jeong Ho never compromise their principles.

The antagonists of the story, especially Lady Choi and Keum Young, serve an important purpose by providing a contrast to Jang Geum’s heroism. Keum Young began as a highly skilled and precocious young lady, generous to her only rival in the kitchen, Jang Geum. But when her supreme value proved to be out of her reach, her spirit was broken, and she sadly became vindictive and dishonorable. Her aunt, Lady Choi, also started out as an innocent child with benevolent goals and dreams. Both of them could remember the time in their youth when so much had been possible. Their downfall is the all-too-common human tragedy of a great potential, given up on, never fulfilled.

Like the heroes of Victor Hugo’s Romantic novels, the heroes of Dae Jang Geum remain loyal to their values to the end, no matter the struggles they must endure to achieve them. In contemplating the lives of Jang Geum and Min Jeong Ho, of Lady Han and Lady Jung, we see life being lived as it could be, and ought to be. Their values may not be the same as ours, just as the values of Lantenac and Cimourdain (two of the central characters of Hugo's novel, Ninety-three) are not ours. But, as Ayn Rand wrote, referring to those characters: “What greatness men are capable of, when they fight for their values!”

It is such a sad, stark contrast to the flippancy, the vulgarity, the cynicism, the mock-heroism of contemporary American drama, whether on television or in movies. Seeing heroic characters who take their lives, their loves, their goals seriously, who do not laugh at themselves, is an inspiration not to be missed. I urge you to take a chance on this foreign production, an unexpected gift from a talented Korean writer to the world.

There is a website, aznVtv - The Best in Asian TV, at which you can watch every episode of Dae Jang Geum. You may need to download the Winamp player, which is free on the website. Here is the url: http://aznv.tv/en/

For a brief sample of the show, you can view many clips on YouTube.

The "Disproportionate Use of Force"

Palestinian terrorists have been launching rockets into Israel on a daily basis for months. Occasionally, Israel responds by air assaults on the rocket launchers, or on the leadership responsible for the offensive. Recently the rocket attacks have become more frequent and are reaching further into Israel.

Belatedly, Israel decided to respond more forcibly, with an incursion into Gaza by its ground forces. This is still inadequate. They have evidently only gone two or three miles inside Gaza, while the rocket launchers can operate from at least 15 miles deep in Gaza.

Nevertheless, even this inadequate response has drawn howls of outrage from the Palestinians, and the United Nations, as usual, weighed in on the side of the Palestinians, accusing Israel of responding with a "disproportionate use of force."

There is no such thing as a "disproportionate use of force" in defense against an aggressor. As the United States properly used all weapons at its disposal - including nuclear weapons - against the Japanese in WWII, so Israel can and should use all the force at its disposal to crush the Palestinian aggression until they cease to be aggressors.

How convenient the world would be for aggressors if their victims adhered to this insane doctrine of "proportionate use of force" in response to being attacked. Imagine hordes of Chinese attacking Taiwan in a maritime invasion, using only spears and rocks against the island's defenders. Adhering to the "proportionate use of force" doctrine, the Taiwanese use only spears and rocks in response. What happens? The Chinese easily defeat the moronic defenders, because there are more Chinese than Taiwanese. In short, the Taiwanese defeated themselves.

This is exactly what the Palestinians, and all the other countries in the Middle East that are hostile to Israel, want Israel to do. It is a recipe for national suicide. Yet the UN supports it, and so do many individual countries, including the United States.

No wonder aggressors are so emboldened in this era of moral grayness and moral "neutrality."

Coddling Dictators

Barack Obama has said that if he is elected President, he will pay a visit to Cuba to talk with its current ruler, Raul Castro. Castro, of course, is a dictator, just as his brother Fidel was. In any case, it is a shameful idea. As Ayn Rand correctly pointed out long ago (from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged):

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .

Not Yours to Give

A recent post on HBL (an email list for subscribers moderated by noted Objectivist, Harry Binswanger) quoted from a biography of Davy Crockett. It is a lengthy excerpt, but worth the time required to read it. The more people who read this, and become aware of how America used to be governed, the better.

[Remarks by Davey Crockett, backwoodsman, mighty hunter, skilled scout, brave soldier, expert rifleman, able judge, heroic defender of the Alamo and member of the 20th 21st and 23rd congress from Tennessee. From "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.]

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation.

Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgement is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett,"you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

A Republic - If You Can Keep It

The Founding Fathers bequeathed to us a glorious Republic based on the inalienable rights of Man. We squandered that bequest long ago. How do we get it back?

The course of human events is moved by philosophy. When a rational philosophy (such as Aristotelianism) is dominant, freedom expands. When an irrational philosophy (such as Platonism) is dominant, freedom contracts. As an Objectivist, I am working toward the re-establishment of a dominant rational philosophy - namely, Objectivism. How long will this take?

In discussing this with me, a friend and fellow Objectivist wrote "when I think about how much effort is required to grasp Objectivism, I am less than confident about the future of our society."

I think that is the key. Objectivists sometimes talk about how quickly Marxism became a worldwide phenomenon. The implication being that Objectivism might duplicate that feat. But the point is, Marxism wasn't intellectual at all. It was just a call to rob the rich and give to the poor. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That's all people took away from Marxism and that's why they - the poor, the lazy, the envious - flocked to its standard. And why they still do, under different names, like modern liberalism, environmentalism, compassionate conservatism, and the anything-goes catch all, "democracy."

Objectivism is exactly the opposite. People, if they understand it, are more likely to run away screaming, than flock to it. They don't want to have to think, they don't want to have to work, they don't want to have to be responsible for their own welfare. Establishing and maintaining a Republic is damned hard work. To quote Benjamin Franklin, in answer to someone who asked him what kind of government the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had come up with: "A Republic - if you can keep it."

We failed to keep it. We will have to duplicate the efforts of the Founding Fathers and their generation - the genuine "greatest generation" - to regain a Republic based on individual rights. It will not happen quickly, or easily. There is no royal road to a just society.

Philosophy: Who Needs It

Everyone needs philosophy, was Ayn Rand's answer to that question, which she gave in an address to the graduating class at West Point in 1974. Everyone lives according to some philosophy, whether they realize it or not.

As Ayn Rand said in her address:

. . . the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation - or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

So if you want to know yourself better, if you want to gain conscious control of your life, your decisions, your judgments, if you want to understand what causes your emotions, you must learn to engage in introspection.

Do you, for example, hate profit-chasing Big Oil executives? Your answer to that question, whether negative or affirmative, reveals a part of your implicit philosophy. If you dislike the desire for profit, ask yourself why. Perhaps you believe profits are immoral. Dig down another step: why do you hold that profits are immoral? Some will answer: because the desire for profit is selfish. For these people, this answer reveals that altruism is their moral philosophy, their ethics. Altruism is the moral code which holds that service to others -selflessness - is the good, and selfishness is the evil. Think Mother Teresa, the most well known altruist in recent times.

Anything opposed to altruism, such as the pursuit of profit, is immoral to an altruist. Dig further into your philosophy and ask yourself why altruism is your moral philosophy. In pursuing these elusive answers, you will be getting at your philosophical premises.

The purpose of this exercise in self-examination is to become aware of the philosophical premises that have been guiding your life subconsciously - without your authorization, so to speak. Most people will find some of the premises they have adopted, somewhere along the way, are not supportable upon close examination. Then discard them, and replace them with premises you can support.

After a lifetime of persistent self-examination, and of pestering others to do the same, the Greek philosopher, Socrates, was convicted of corrupting the minds of the young. He faced the death penalty, but it was suggested he might be allowed to live if he would accept exile, and cease to be the annoying philosophical gadfly he admitted to being. He refused the offer. The unexamined life, he said, is not worth living.

Ragtime: A Musical Interlude

An example of the benevolent spirit of ragtime music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGyQmKmIMp4

I generally prefer solo piano ragtime, but this is an excellent banjo version of Dill Pickles Rag, by Charles Johnson.

Poetic Interlude

To Helen

Helen, thy beauty is to me
Like those Nicean barks of yore,
That gently, o'er a perfumed sea,
The weary, wayworn wanderer bore
To his own native shore.

On desperate seas long wont to roam,
Thy hyacinth hair, thy classic face,
Thy Naiad airs have brought me home
To the glory that was Greece
And the grandeur that was Rome.

Lo! in yon brilliant window-niche
How statue-like I see thee stand,
The agate lamp within thy hand!
Ah, Psyche, from the regions which
Are Holy Land!

Edgar Allan Poe

Ecce Homo

Howard Roark, intransigent architect hero of Ayn Rand's novel, The Fountainhead, is one of the most inspiring creations in the history of literature. He had his own ideas about what and how to build, and he turned them into reality in spite of all the obstacles a timid and envious society could hurl against him.

Much more inspiring, though, is an intransigent hero who actually existed. Behold the man, Wilbur Wright. The oldest dream of man was to fly. Icarus, Bellerophon on Pegasus, flying carpets, and countless other myths and fables show the dream realized in fiction. Leonardo Da Vinci, a hero of the Renaissance, worked on making the dream a reality, but it was too early. Technology was not yet advanced enough.

When the technology was ready, Wilbur Wright (and to a lesser extent, Orville Wright) stepped forward and engineered the marvel of powered flight. From the dauntless self-confidence needed to believe he could achieve this "impossible dream," through long hours of research, countless brilliant experiments, successes and setbacks - all funded from the Wrights' own savings - to the epoch making first flight at Kill Devil Hills (near Kitty Hawk), Wilbur Wright overcame every obstacle.

He conquered the sky.

Wilbur Wright is man, the hero. Next time someone moans that he is "only human," remind him of what heroes men can be, by pointing to Wilbur Wright.

Once Upon a Time in America

With a population of some three million, colonial America produced more Statesmen than modern America can produce with her 300 million. How can that be, when we have the advantage of public education?

America still produces brilliant and ambitious men. But none of them yearn to be part of our Government, as they did in our Revolutionary days. Those were days of ferment when great things were being accomplished in government, namely the enshrinement of man's inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and the establishment of a Republic - a nation of laws, and not of men.

What is government doing today? The long train of abuses and usurpations one could list would put those of King George III to shame. Nobody with any honor or self-respect would agree to be part of such a government, except with the express purpose of annihilating the work of the last century of misgovernment.

There are no such Statesmen today, anywhere upon the landscape.