Category: Politics

From a speech titled “Environmentalism as Religion” that Michael Crichton gave to the Commonwealth Club in September 2003:

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.
We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.
As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

Keep reading…
I’ve recently purchased Crichton’s anti-environmentalist novel State of Fear, and am looking forward to reading it.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales (whose appreciation for Ayn Rand’s ideas is a matter of public record) has launched an initiative to “ramp up the intelligence of poltics.”
In his open letter to the political blogosphere, published yesterday, he writes:

I am launching today a new Wikia website aimed at being a central meeting ground for people on all sides of the political spectrum who think that it is time for politics to become more participatory, and more intelligent.
This website, Campaigns Wikia, has the goal of bringing together people from diverse political perspectives who may not share much else, but who share the idea that they would rather see democratic politics be about engaging with the serious ideas of intelligent opponents, about activating and motivating ordinary people to get involved and really care about politics beyond the television soundbites.
Together, we will start to work on educating and engaging the political campaigns about how to stop being broadcast politicians, and how to start being community and participatory politicians.
How will we do that? Is it possible? Jimbo, are you crazy?
Ok, I might be crazy. I founded Wikipedia, which is of course about as crazy an idea as anyone might imagine. And you know what? I was not and I still am not smart enough to figure out how to make Wikipedia work. The Wikipedians figured that out, my role has only been to listen and watch, and to guide us forward in a spirit of sincerity and love to do something useful.
So, I will frankly admit right up front: I don’t know how to make politics healthier. But, I believe that you do. I believe that together we can work, this very election season, to force campaigns to use wikis and blogs to organize, discuss, manage, lead and be led by their volunteers.
We can turn this into the first beginnings of what is to come. This can be the start of the era of net-driven participatory politics. And it does not matter if you are on the right, on the left, moderate or extreme, socialist or libertarian. Whoever you are, and whatever you believe, you can share with me my sincere desire that the process start to be about substance and thought, rather than style and image.

Keep reading to learn more…

Warren Buffett — not known as a particularly principled supporter of capitalism, though clearly talented at making money — has long planned to give away his fortunes when he died. But he’s decided to move up the timetable.
From the article “Warren Buffett gives away his fortune” published today in Fortune Magazine:

Buffett, 75, has for decades said his wealth would go to philanthropy but has just as steadily indicated the handoff would be made at his death. Now he was revising the timetable.
“I know what I want to do,” he said, “and it makes sense to get going.” On that spring day his plan was uncertain in some of its details; today it is essentially complete. And it is typical Buffett: rational, original, breaking the mold of how extremely rich people donate money.
Buffett has pledged to gradually give 85% of his Berkshire stock to five foundations. A dominant five-sixths of the shares will go to the world’s largest philanthropic organization, the $30 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, whose principals are close friends of Buffett’s (a connection that began in 1991, when a mutual friend introduced Buffett and Bill Gates).
The Gateses credit Buffett, says Bill, with having “inspired” their thinking about giving money back to society. Their foundation’s activities, internationally famous, are focused on world health — fighting such diseases as malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis — and on improving U.S. libraries and high schools.

Giving money to charity can be a very good thing, if the money gets spent well, and infectious diseases are a great problem to address through private charity rather than government appropriations.
But when we hear Buffett and Gates claiming that this is their way of “giving back to society” (as though they were looters up to this point, rather than trading value-for-value with every day they worked) it all starts sounding like a scene from Atlas Shrugged — and not a good one.
If they really want to give to society, they should stop apologizing for their success and start promoting values like political freedom, private property, and free markets — values that not only allowed them to become wealthy, but will allow future generations to do the same.

Anyone following Google’s adventures (and misadventures) in China may be interested in Glenn Reynolds’s latest opinion editorial:

Google has been a huge deal â?? its founders have become rich, its name has become a verb, and its influence is international.
Lately, though, I’ve been wondering if Google has peaked. The reason is that, for lots of different groups of people, Google’s reputation as good guys has been stained. And I’m not sure what Google really has to bank on, besides a good reputation.
Google has come under criticism from people on the left â?? and right â?? for its cave-in to Chinese demands for censorship. From “don’t be evil,” Google’s motto has seemed to be “don’t be evil unless there’s a really big market at stake.”

Keep reading…

From an excellent article at Newsweek by Jonathan Alter, updating us all on the age in which we live and why it’s going to prove significant during the next presidential election:

Bob Schieffer of CBS News made a good point on “The Charlie Rose Show” last week. He said that successful presidents have all skillfully exploited the dominant medium of their times. The Founders were eloquent writers in the age of pamphleteering. Franklin D. Roosevelt restored hope in 1933 by mastering radio. And John F. Kennedy was the first president elected because of his understanding of television.
Will 2008 bring the first Internet president? Last time, Howard Dean and later John Kerry showed that the whole idea of “early money” is now obsolete in presidential politics. The Internet lets candidates who catch fire raise millions in small donations practically overnight. That’s why all the talk of Hillary Clinton’s “war chest” making her the front runner for 2008 is the most hackneyed punditry around.

[…] To begin busting up the dumb system we have for selecting presidents, a bipartisan group will open shop this week at Unity08.com. This Internet-based third party is spearheaded by three veterans of the antique 1976 campaign: Democrats Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon helped get Jimmy Carter elected; Republican Doug Bailey did media for Gerald Ford before launching the political TIP SHEET Hotline. They are joined by the independent former governor of Maine, Angus King, and a collection of idealistic young people who are also tired of a nominating process that pulls the major party candidates to the extremes. Their hope: to get even a fraction of the 50 million who voted for the next American Idol to nominate a third-party candidate for president online and use this new army to get him or her on the ballot in all 50 states. The idea is to go viralâ??or die. “The worst thing that could happen would be for a bunch of old white guys like us to run this,” Jordan says.

[…] But funny things happen in election years. With an issue as eye-glazing as the deficit, a wacky, jug-eared Texan named Ross Perot received 19 percent of the vote in 1992 and 7 percent in 1996. He did it with “Larry King Live” and an 800 number. In a country where more than 40 percent of voters now self-identify as independents, it’s no longer a question of whether the Internet will revolutionize American politics, but when.

This is a very exciting possibility for those of us who are perennially frustrated by the current two-party dynamics in the United States.
See the full article for more.
UPDATE (6/1/06) – Peggy Noonan has a timely article in the WSJ on a related topic, namely, the continued crisis of two-party politics, and the increasing likelihood that only a third-party candidate could deliver the kinds of reform that American needs in order to stay safe, free, and fiscally responsible.
UPDATE (6/2/06) – And today, more on this topic from Instapundit.