Robert Garmong on Privatizing Space Exploration

The American Daily has published a new op-ed by Robert Garmong titled “Privatize Space Exploration.” It begins:

As NASA scrambles to make the July 31 window for the troubled launch of space shuttle Discovery, we should recall the first privately funded manned spacecraft, SpaceShipOne, which over a year ago shattered more than the boundary of outer space: it destroyed forever the myth that space exploration can only be done by the government.
Two years ago, a Bush Administration panel on space exploration recommended that NASA increase the role of private contractors in the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that NASA will consider the true free-market solution for America’s expensive space program: complete privatization.
There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man’s technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their creative thinking and judgment. Yet, by funding the space program through taxation, we necessarily place it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA’s history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals.

See the full article for more information.
UPDATE: On a related note, Instapundit points us to this optimistic article in the Christian Science Monitor: “Beyond NASA: The Push to Privatize Space Flight.”

Fountainhead Fan: Wedding Crasher Vince Vaughn

Vince VaughnA brief article in the Chicago Tribune reports that actor Vince Vaughn‘s favorite book is Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.
Vaughn co-stars in the new movie Wedding Crashers, due out in theaters tomorrow, July 15th.
From the Trib article:

The actor, who grew up in Lake Forest and recently moved to Chicago, was asked to name some favorites by InStyle magazine. He says his favorite book is “The Fountainhead” by Ayn Rand and his favorite film that he was in is “Swingers.” He won’t reveal his favorite government leader, though.
“I keep my politics to myself–I am just an actor making movies.”

Heh. Nice quality in an actor.
Vaughn also played Mr. Smith’s best friend (the guy who still lives with his mother) in Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
UPDATE: Wedding Crashers earns a good review from Roger Friedman over at FoxNews. Excerpts:

David Dobkin’s “Wedding Crashers,” a comedy from New Line, looks like it’s a big, freakin’ comedy hit.
It’s also rated R because it’s a little raunchy and very politically incorrect.
Nevertheless, Dobkin gets the best performances to date out of Vince Vaughn ? for whom this could be a breakout role ? and Owen Wilson. Luckily, he had a good script by Steve Faber and Bob Fisherto work with.
Vince took it in stride when I mentioned that he stole the movie, which isn’t an easy thing to do when Owen Wilson is around.
In between the riotously funny R-rated scenes, there are some nice character touches that give “Crashers” unexpected texture. It’s a perfect summer date movie.

UPDATE: Johnathan Pearce (writing for Samizdata.net) calls Wedding Crashers “two of the funniest hours [I’ve] spent at cinema in quite a while” and “an outrageous, politically incorrect, deplorable romp of a movie, the perfect tonic for these unpleasant times.”

'Batman Begins' Popular Among Ayn Rand Fans

An article in the Miami Herald (“Batman’s laissez-faire-weather fans“) notes that Batman Begins has become very popular among Ayn Rand fans and other advocates of individualism and capitalism:

Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan’s brooding comic-book blockbuster that opened June 15, has been embraced by its fans for many things: Nolan’s dark, shadowy aesthetic, the detail with which he has teased out Batman’s mythical origins, and Christian Bale’s wholly credible performance as the psychologically complex billionaire-turned-Dark Knight.
But Batman Begins has become something of a cult hit among fans of free markets, individualism and Ayn Rand, among other things. Perform a cursory Google search with the terms Batman Begins and “capitalism,” for instance, and you come up with a blogosphere love-fest, with conservative and especially libertarian commentators praising the film’s pro-business, anti-statist themes.

The article continues:

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, saw Batman Begins recently at the encouragement of a friend at the Objectivist Center, which, on its website, champions “reason, individualism, freedom and achievement.”
Boaz was happily struck by the fact that the hero was a businessman, he says, “but I think what was more interesting . . . is that the movie takes a strong stand that some things are evil, some people are evil. Crime is bad. And criminals need to be punished, not to be understood and coddled and let out of jail for more therapy.”
Boaz says he was gratified as well to see a heroic portrayal of individualism and the idea “that it’s up to each person to take a stand and each person has his own talents, abilities and opportunities. Bruce Wayne, because of his money and training, has more talent and opportunities to do these things than most of us, but it’s made clear that it’s important for everybody to take a stand.”
Although Hollywood often takes the rap for touting reflexively left-wing pieties, Boaz says the ideas that run through Batman Begins actually aren’t that rare at the multiplex or on TV; he cites such hits as The Aviator, with its multimillionaire hero, The Incredibles, with its sly critiques of egalitarianism (“If everybody’s special, then nobody is”) and the gleefully libertarian South Park as only the most recent examples.
“America is basically a libertarian country,” Boaz says, “so Americans are going to put libertarian themes into the art they create, and sometimes it’s more explicit and sometimes it’s less so. But it’s not a big surprise to see individualism, anti-totalitarianism and fighting for freedom and social tolerance showing up in American art.” Kapow!

See the full article for more information.

Update on Judge Souter and the Lost Liberty Hotel

According to a new article in the Dakota Voice, Logan Darrow Clements has received an enthusiastically supportive response from New Hampshire residents and is proceeding with his plans for the Lost Liberty Hotel:
Logan Darrow Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, is moving forward with plans to have the town of Weare, New Hampshire, take the home of Supreme Court Judge David H. Souter for development of a new “Lost Liberty Hotel.”
As reported by Dakota Voice and others, Clements expressed interest in Souter’s home after a Supreme Court ruling supported by Souter himself was made in “Kelo vs. City of New London,” allowing city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
Just 24 hours after Clements’ announcement, the town of Weare was “inundated” by calls and emails of support for Clements’ proposal.
Mr. Clements wants to build “The Lost Liberty Hotel,” which will feature the “Just Desserts Café.” The hotel would include a museum, open to the general public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
In the Lost Liberty Hotel newsletter issued today, Clements said some of the comments he has received “inspired me and others made me laugh so hard I nearly fell out of my chair.”
Clements says he has received about 6,000 emails and voicemails, and his website started to receive about 370,000 visits a day. He is is looking to hire staff to help him.
The newsletter also states that Clements is looking for an experienced hotel developer. He is already talking to several companies, but would like to hear from more so that he can make the best decision possible.
Clements also says that even if the Board of Selectmen in Weare doesn’t vote in favor of his proposal, which would generate more tax revenue for them than Souter’s property tax nets, that several citizens are drafting ballot initiatives which would bypass the Board and accomplish the same results.
Clements points out that he has not yet officially made this proposal, but wants to secure a development company first, to prepare all the architectural drawings, economic viability statistics, financial statements, etc. to illustrate how the venture will work and succeed. Clements says that at this point, he has only faxed the town, asking them to outline the procedures for making such a proposal.
Clements is scheduled to appear on a national cable television show the afternoon of Tuesday, July 12 (more details to follow).

Why Won't Muslims Denounce Their 'Extremists'?

In the wake of the recent London bombings, a number of writers around the web are re-asking the very good question “Why don’t Islamics denounce and suppress their own so-called ‘extremists’ more effectively?”
In his aptly titled blog entry “Is it Islamic “extremism” — or is it Islam itself?” Objectivist writer Robert Bidinotto begins:

In the wake of the London bombings, we are forced again to confront this most uncomfortable question:
Do the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists truly represent a marginal minority among Muslims worldwide?
Or is the term “Islamic fundamentalist” really just a redundancy?
I am by no means an expert on Islam. But since 9/11, and countless terrorist incidents since, I have been patiently awaiting evidence that the majority of Muslims worldwide repudiate the premises and tactics of Islamic terrorists.
Well, I’m still waiting. And there comes a time when one must finally draw conclusions, however painful, from the facts presented.
If there really is some sort of ongoing war between “extremists” and “moderates” for the soul of Islam, it appears to be one of the quietest contests in the history of ideological warfare.

Instapundit addressed this topic yesterday as well, and provides this quote from an article by Tom Friedman in the NYTimes:

Because there is no obvious target to retaliate against, and because there are not enough police to police every opening in an open society, either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists – if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings – or the West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way – by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent.
And because I think that would be a disaster, it is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst. If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere. Only the Muslim world can root out that death cult. It takes a village. . . .
The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day – to this day – no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.

See Instapundit’s full discussion for more analysis and a link to information about one Muslim group that has, in fact, issued a Fatwah against Osama bin Laden.

Africa Needs Mercenaries, Not Musicians

Yesterday’s LATimes.com included an excellent article by Max Boot (“Mercenaries, Not Musicians, for Africa“) exposing the real problem in Africa, and why all the various charity concerts absolutely will not help:
In the last 50 years, $2.3 trillion has been spent to help poor countries. Yet Africans’ income and life expectancy have gone down, not up, during that period, while South Korea, Singapore and other Asian nations that received little if any assistance have moved from African-level poverty to European-level prosperity thanks to their superior economic policies.
Economists who have studied aid projects have found numerous reasons for the failures. In many instances, money was siphoned off by corrupt officials. Even when funds did reach the intended beneficiaries, the money often distorted local markets for goods and labor, creating inflation that drove local businesses out of business. . . .
Oddly enough, Sachs ignores the most obvious obstacle to Africa’s escape from the “poverty trap,” what his pal Bob Geldof has accurately described as “corruption and thuggery.” (This was also Sachs’ blind spot when he tried to reform the Russian economy in the 1990s.) Yet not even Sir Bob has offered any plausible ideas for addressing these deep-rooted woes.
Africans continue to be tormented not by the G-8, as anti-poverty campaigners imply, but by their own politicos, including Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who is abetting genocide in Darfur, and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who is turning his once-prosperous country into a famine-plagued basket case. Unless it’s linked to specific “good governance” benchmarks (as with the new U.S. Millennium Challenge Account), more aid risks subsidizing dysfunctional regimes.
Any real solution to Africa’s problems must focus on the root causes of poverty ? mainly misgovernment. Instead of pouring billions more down the same old rat holes, maybe the Live 8 crew should promote a more innovative approach: Use the G-8’s jillions 2 hire mercenaries 4 the overthrow of the 6 most thuggish regimes in Africa. That would do more to help ordinary Africans than any number of musical extravaganzas.
See the full article for more great information. (Found via Instapundit.)

Ed Hudgins on the London Massacre

Writing for the Objectivist Center, Ed Hudgins provides the following analysis of the four coordinated terrorist bombings that hit London this morning:
On July 7 hundreds of Londoners were killed or injured in vicious terrorist attacks and Islamists, the same death-worshiping religious fanatics who have also killed Americans, Spaniards, Australians, Turks, Israelis, Egyptians and citizens of most countries of the world, have lined up to take credit.
Flashback nearly four years: in London on the first anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks against the United States, a major conference called “A Towering Day in History” was held at the Finsburg Mosque, a hotbed of al-Qaeda sympathizers, to celebrate rather than condemn those crimes. But it was what did not happen that was most telling. The mosque was not surrounded by tens of thousands of outraged Muslims — as well as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and all others — well outnumbering the thousands of terrorist-supporting conferees, to denounce with no “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts” both the attacks on America and the moral degenerates in that mosque.
In the United States whenever a dozen neo-Nazis or Klansmen seek permits to demonstrate in any town or city, their numbers are swamped by counter-demonstrators letting them know in no uncertain terms that they are not welcome. It is unimaginable that a Finsburg Mosque-type event could be staged in Washington, New York or any major American city without loud, massive and probably nationwide rallies against the death-worshipers. The identity of each Islamist would be noted by private citizens and they would be ostracized as the moral monsters they are, though whether most American Muslims would do so as well is an open question.
Continue reading “Ed Hudgins on the London Massacre”

Howard Roark and Libeskind's Freedom Tower

In a new article “The Politics of Architecture: WTC Freedom Tower Reprise,” architecture student Aaron Margolis draws an extended comparison between Howard Roark’s design of Cortlandt Homes and Daniel Libeskind’s design of Freedom Tower. From the article:

When I think of the bastardization of Libeskind’s Freedom Tower, I immediately think of another architect, Howard Roark, from Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead.” For those unfamiliar with Rand’s novel, Howard Roark was an architect who broke from convention; rather than copying from the masters as society has prescribed, Roark designed his buildings from within himself, designs that were not understood by his contemporaries.

Along these same lines, last month Frank Heynick published an article at the Atlasphere, “Roark Libeskind, and the Freedom Tower,” making similar observations about the parallels between Howard Roark and Daniel Libeskind.
(It may be worth pointing out that Daniel Libeskind is apparently no friend of free markets, and so any comparisons between he and Howard Roark are perhaps best kept to the realm of architecture.)

Atlas Shrugged Movie Update

From Variety.com (the second to last paragraph):

Scribe James V. Hart, who recently adapted Clive Cussler’s bestselling novel “Sahara” for ParPar and Baldwin Entertainment, also is adapting Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” for Baldwin Entertainment.

And, from a May 3, 2004 Atlasphere posting, the The Atlas Society wrote:

The Atlas Society received a note just two days ago from the Baldwin Entertainment Group. This is the company that is now producing the Atlas Shrugged movie (Howard Baldwin founded the company after the shakeup at Crusader). This is what he says: “…everything is on track and [the movie] hasn?t been held up one bit…. I assure you that this will be a big movie and IT WILL GET MADE.”

Of course, there have been many attempted projects in the past, but this is the same group that produced the movie Ray, and so one can hope for a successful outcome this time around!

What Makes You Click: An Analysis of Online Dating

The New York Times recently published an article summarizing the results of a new study, “What Makes You Click: An Empirical Analysis of Online Dating,” conducted by researchers from the University of Chicago.
From the Times’ summary of the study:

What are people looking for? The most important variable, for both men and women, is looks. Furthermore, posting a photo is a big help: women who post photos receive about twice as many e-mail messages as those who do not, even when they report that they have “average looks.”
Having a lot of money is good for attracting e-mail messages, at least for men. Those men reporting incomes in excess of $250,000 received 156 percent more e-mail messages than those with incomes below $50,000. Women like men with a higher income than they have but men do not want to date women who earn more than they do.
The stated goals for using the service make a big difference in how many e-mail messages are received. Men who are “hoping to start a long-term relationship” receive substantially more e-mail than those who are “just looking/curious.” The worst thing a man can say is that he is “seeking a casual relationship,” receiving 42 percent fewer e-mail messages than he would otherwise. A woman, by contrast, gets 17 percent more e-mail messages by reporting this goal.

Thanks to Don Hauptman for the tip.