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”
Category: The Atlasphere
All things Atlasphere can be found here, columns, podcasts, interesting anecdotes, and more.
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.
Onkar Ghate on BBC Radio Altruism Panel
Dr. Onkar Ghate, senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, was a panelist on the BBC’s “Night Waves” radio program, broadcasted on June 29. The topic was altruism, sparked by the “Make Poverty History” campaign and related Live8 concert. The program was 45 minutes long. The recording will be available on the BBC’s radio web site until July 6.
From the announcement of the show:
But what lies behind an individual’s desire to help others in a selfless way? Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, believed that individuals have a moral obligation to serve the interest of others, even at one’s own cost. Yet the writer Ayn Rand challenged both philosophical and conventional ethics and presented strong arguments against altruism in its various forms.
The other panelists included: evolutionary biologist and author of The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins (who in fact is in favor of altruism); Frances Cairncross, former senior editor at The Econiomist; theologian Phillip Blond; and Hugo Slim from the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.
Read the full announcement.
Private Developer Turns Table on Justice Souter
Press release by Atlasphere member Logan Darrow Clements, CEO of Freestar Media:
Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.
Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows 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.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.
Read the full press release for more information.
Hudgins on Kelo and property rights
Ed Hudgins of The Objectivist Center writes in today’s Washington Times:
This decision in the Kelo v. New London case is another giant step toward classical corporatism or fascism in America.
The op-ed explains why the Supreme Court ruling effectively means that no one’s property is secure from government and how this moves us closer to fascism. Hudgins closes by reaffirming that property rights are essential to a prosperous and free society.
Read the full article…
Microsoft Aids Chinese Government's Censors
Despite its own brushes with American anti-trust law (and the impassioned defense it subsequently received from many Ayn Rand-inspired commentators), Microsoft seems oblivious to the true perils of government tyranny.
From a new article in Wired magazine:
SHANGHAI, China — Twenty-eight floors above the traffic-choked streets of China’s most wired city, blogger and tech entrepreneur Isaac Mao sums up his opinion of Microsoft and its treatment of the Chinese bloggers with one word. “Evil,” says Mao. “Internet users know what’s evil and what’s not evil, and MSN Spaces is an evil thing to Chinese bloggers.”
Mao, 33, knows something about the topic. In 2002, he was one of China’s first bloggers, and since then his ideas on harnessing blogs, peer-to-peer and grass-roots technologies to empower the Chinese people have made him a respected voice in the global blogosphere.
Today, Mao is a partner in a venture capital firm that funds Chinese internet startups, including a blog-hosting service occupying part of the market Microsoft hopes to move in on with MSN Spaces.
The Chinese version of MSN Spaces is linked to the new MSN China portal, launched last month in partnership with Shanghai Alliance Investment, a company funded by the city government here. Last week that partnership plunged Microsoft into the long-standing controversy surrounding the Chinese government’s internet censorship policies, after Asian blogs and news reports revealed that MSN Spaces blocks Chinese bloggers from putting politically sensitive language in the names of their blogs, or in the titles of individual blog entries.
The words and phrases blocked by Microsoft include “Taiwan independence,” “Dalai Lama,” “human rights,” “freedom” and “democracy.”
In a statement, lead MSN product manager Brooke Richardson said, “MSN abides by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates. The content posted on member spaces is the responsibility of individuals who are required to abide by MSN’s code of conduct.”
Mao dismisses that statement as disingenuous. The company, he says, is going above and beyond official censorship practices, which deal decisively with speech critical of the ruling communist government, but don’t outright ban words like “freedom.”
“They could try to reach a balance, so the users will understand, but the government won’t try to make trouble for the business,” says Mao. “Instead, they’re just trying to flatter the government.”
See the full article for more information. (Found via Instapundit).
David Boaz on Liberty at the Movies
Writing for Cato, David Boaz has published a list of his favorite liberty-themed movies. He starts:
A few years back, I wrote about the libertarian themes of many of the movies nominated for Oscars. Now, for the summer, I thought I’d recommend some all-time favorite libertarian movies. I’m not going to discuss documentaries or educational films such as The Incredible Bread Machine, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, or John Stossel’s superb ABC specials. Today’s topic is libertarian movies from Hollywood — and there have been more than you might think.
Shenandoah, a 1965 film starring Jimmy Stewart, is often regarded as the best libertarian film Hollywood ever made. Stewart is a Virginia farmer who wants to stay out of the Civil War. Not our fight, he tells his sons. He refuses to let the state take his sons, or his horses, for war. Inevitably, though, his family is drawn into the war raging around them, and the movie becomes very sad. I cried when I was 11 years old, and I teared up again when I saw it recently. This is a powerful movie about independence, self-reliance, individualism, and the horrors of war.
War may be the most awful thing men do, but slavery is also a contender for that title. Steven Spielberg’s Amistad (1997) tells a fascinating story about a ship full of Africans who turned up in New England in 1839. The question: Under American law, are they slaves? A long legal battle ensues, going up to the Supreme Court. Libertarians like to joke about lawyers. Sometimes we even quote the Shakespeare line, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” — not realizing that that line was said by a killer who understood that the law stands in the way of would-be tyrants. Amistad gives us a picture of a society governed by law; even the vile institution of slavery was subject to the rule of law. And when the former president, John Quincy Adams, makes his argument before the Supreme Court, it should inspire us all to appreciate the law that protects our freedom.
See his full article for more recommendations.
New Novel in the Ayn Rand Tradition: Noble Vision
Gennady Stolyarov II has published a review of the novel Noble Vision, which looks like it may be of interest to admirers of Ayn Rand’s novels. His review concludes:
Noble Vision is a novel of heroes and villains, good and evil in the most fundamental existential sense. In it, men of integrity confront men of cowardice over the issue of state-controlled medicine. In the real United States, the government is still greedily eying the medical field, seeking to shackle and regulate it in preparation for a complete usurpation. Will there be enough real-world heroes to resist this infringement upon individual sovereignty, prosperity, and progress? For those who wish to partake in the struggle for free markets, Noble Vision is an excellent companion and source of intellectual ammunition.
Atlasphere member Paul Hibbert read this novel recently and tells me it’s a real page-turner. See the full review for more information.