3.5% down payment

It amazes me that after the incredible housing crises, that FHA loans still require as little as 3.5% down payment.  On top of that, buyers are often demanding $3000-5000 cash back at closing, essentially making their out of pocket expense $0.  In the past few months of our house on the market, we've had two offers like this.  Both have requested sizable amounts of cash back at closing.  While I understand that they may have good credit, the continuing drop in home values will only continue to put individuals into a hole they cannot escape if they are forced to sell quickly.  This will inevitably lead to more foreclosures and further price drops.  All because our government backs these loans.  These guarantees are what put our housing market into the mess its in.

What is racism and Why the Tea Party is Not

The other day, I wrote a series of comments on a friend's blog about the nature of racism - as I was having a serious problem with his notion that the Tea Party movement is racist.  His comments helped me to think through the issue and better understand our different definitions of racism.  So I'm reposting some of my comments here:

I think we can define racism simply as a type of discrimination based on race. Discrimination is not in and of itself a bad thing. For example, I am very discriminating on who are my friends and who I trust to care for my kids. It is a stupid thing to discriminate based on inessentials, like race. It is an evil thing to promote discrimination of inessentials as law. That's why most racism discussions center on laws and regulations that are designed to negatively impact certain races.

But here's an important differentiation - its not just "negative impact" that defines racism, its legislation that is "designed" to "negatively impact" other races. There must be intent. Without intent, you merely have a law. Perhaps a bad law for other reasons, but not a racist law. So the poll tax and Jim Crow laws can be considered racist because history shows us that the intention for creating the laws were to keep blacks downtrodden.

If you want to show that the Tea Party is racist, you need to likewise show that their intent is to discriminate based on race.

He disagreed that a label of racism implies intent, so I elaborated:

By my definition of racism as a type of discrimination, I'm not sure I could agree that it is something un/sub conscious. The act of discrimination is conscious in nature. I differentiate that from prejudice, which is a conscious or subconscious bias toward some person, group, or class of things without knowing all the facts. You seem to favor prejudice by race as the definition of racism. I favor discrimination by race as the definition of racism.

The reason I favor the latter definition is that the former seems to overly broad and not all that useful. Certainly people have prejudices and they should be careful to eliminate them the best they can. But with your definition, almost anyone can be called a racist without recourse. I could say (and I don't believe this) "Curtis is racist but he doesn't even realize it". I think it cheapens the concept racist to include honest but real prejudices with insidious racial discrimination. Basically, it tries to lump simple biases that may not be consciously chosen with wicked mob lynchings, classifying all under an "evil" tag of racism. That does an injustice to those who may not even want their bias and an injustice to those who deserve the label of "evil" but have it watered down.

After writing this, I imagined some examples that seem appropriate here.  If racism is merely a bias toward or against another race, than any preference/bias/likes/dislikes of anything related to skin color/nationality/origin could be considered racism; a preference for Cuban music is racist, liking German food is racist, choosing sushi over spaghetti is racist, marrying a white woman is racist, or thinking that the Russian language is harsh is racist.  The whole idea that racism is slippery and insidious would make it applicable to everyone with any preferences.

Curtis asked in turn:

"The act of discrimination is conscious in nature."

How? I think that's an untenable position. We now have data that toddlers choose light skinned dolls over dark skinned dolls regardless of the race of the child. Are you saying that is a conscious decision even though toddlers have no conceptualization of race?

I'm not familiar with this research, but if true could be caused by any number of things.  But I seriously doubt this is a conscious decision and hence not discrimination.  According to OED, the definition of discriminate is "1. To make or constitute a difference in or between; to distinguish, differentiate. 2. To distinguish with the mind or intellect; to perceive, observe, or note the difference in or between."  It is in this sense that I use the word discrimination.  Making, constituting, perceiving, observing, and noting are all conscious processes. So no, I would not consider these children racist (discriminating based on race).  But according to his own conception of racism, they would be, which leads me a little bit confused by his question.

Curtis also asks:

"But with your definition, almost anyone can be called a racist without recourse."

If they're racist, then they should be called racist, no? And what recourse would there be? I don't get that part. It seems you have an idea of trying someone in court to determine if they're racist or not. I might be reading too much into it though.

Without recourse refers to the appeal to innocence.  If someone is labeled racist, how would it be possible to disprove that claim?  When the definition of racism is any prejudice toward a race, the answer is - you can't.  There is no evidence that would prove someone is not prejudice, because, as he describes it, the concept is slippery and insidious.  Even Curtis admits as much in the last paragraph of his post "So is there "evidence" or "proof" that the Tea Party is racist? No." If there is no proof they are racist, then there can also be no proof they are not racist, because you can't disprove a negative.  Once the label of racism is thrown at a person or a group, it is impossible to overcome that label.

That, I contend, is a improper way to define the term.  As I noted above, pretty much anyone can be described as racist according to his definition.  Any preferences toward one race over another, whether intentional or not, then you would be racist.  But if everyone is "racist", then I'm left with a big "So what?"  If everyone has these preferences, then everyone simply exists. 

The only idea I can fathom that would motivate this definition of racism is the possibility that biases and prejudices left unchecked could lead to discrimination. This certainly has some plausibility, especially given the anti-conceptual nature of much of our culture.  However, I certainly don't buy that certain biases and prejudices necessarily lead to discrimination.  There is a possibility, no more.  Individuals can consciously identify racial discrimination and reject it, even if certain biases led them to prefer one race or tradition over another.  They can prefer the culture of whites (or blacks), yet consciously choose not to discriminate against another race because they know its wrong.  They could judge each person they meet individually, as a man or woman, not a black man or a white woman or an Asian man or a Middle eastern woman or whatever their background may be.  Where would this situation fit in with his definition?  I don't know, but I would like to find out.

Based on all the evidence I've seen, the Tea Party is not racist.  There may be a few racists that support the group, but nearly every instance where racists have shown up to Tea Party events, the organizers have marginalized their voice or kicked them out.  The Tea Party did rise after Obama came into power, but only after he proceeded to push government spending beyond what even Bush was doing.  Most Tea Partiers were mad at Bush and the Republicans for their spending.  That's why the Tea Party refuses to identify with the Republicans.  Obama promised something different.  Instead, he gave us any even bigger debt.  Of the Tea Party supporters I've talked too, not one has mentioned any sort of intent to hurt or dis-impoverish blacks.  Not one has suggested that they dislike Obama because he his black.  They dislike Obama because he had the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007.  Maybe, just maybe, people dislike him because of that?  Perhaps the policies they advocate are because they are genuinely worried about our debt, not because they secretly want to hurt some group of people.  Perhaps they think and don't just feel.

I do offer limited approval of the Tea Party.  I believe they are a mixed bag, but mostly good.  They could really improve with a heavy dose of a philosophy respecting individual rights. 

Are banks the boogie man?

In this Kiplinger column, an interview with Mr. Simon Johnson, a former IMF chief economist, leaves me very puzzled: 

"The main problem is political. Who would pay for any bailout and over what time period? To what extent are German taxpayers, for example, willing to foot the bill, directly or indirectly, for the mistakes of other countries -- or, you could say, the mistakes of their bankers?" [bold added]

So which is it, a political problem or a banking problem.   Throughout the interview he blames the bankers for much of the problems in Greece, Ireland, and every other country in economic crisis mode.  And yet, he seems to hold that this is a system crisis.  A system of what?  Does he mean an economic system?  A political system?  Or does he consider economics and politics so intertwined that they are one in the same?  If the latter, then why does he place the blame on just the bankers?  If the bankers are in bed with the politicians, then, by his standard, aren't both to blame equally. 

This is my take on the current crisis: to the extent that European countries (and the U.S.) maintain a mixed-economy, politics and business will necessarily be intertwined.  Bankers are the most regulated industry in most countries and so highlights the major problems with socialism.  So if this is a system crisis or a problem with banking, its manifested by the political/economic system that these countries adhere too, socialism.  Its not a failure with the free-markets or with bankers, its a failure with trying to control industries, necessitating political lobbying, favoritism, and bailouts.  Banks don't need more regulations, but less.  But let them fail when they screw up.  The short term hurt will be worth the long term strength.  And they will quickly learn NOT to do that again.  But most importantly, respect the property rights of the bankers.  Doing so will ensure their self-interested pursuit of fiscally strong institutions.  But let's stop acting like the banks are the boogie man.  

European financial crises

The current European financial crises seems like a great opportunity for a compilation of facts that demonstrate the futility of the many absurd economic and political notions floating around.

Objectivists could create videos like this one, but with moral backbones.  Factual, yet witty in the demonstration of absurdities.

ObamaCare is Medical Malpractice

I am completely and unequivocally against the health care bill.  The government already accounts for 50% of the medical payments through Medicare and Medicaid.  If there is a problem with health care today, why look further than the single largest payer? 

Gus van Horn made a great observation:

If more people held the view that knowledge is integrated, and all of it is ultimately based on the facts of (objective) reality, we would, furthermore, have near-rioting by now by a public well aware that if this is how Congress wants to run our medical sector, this is also how it will ultimately make our health decisions for us...

Fight this bill.  End it here before our health care is completely corrupted by Congress.  Doctors, not congress, should be the final arbitrators on what procedures are best for their patients.  Anything less is medical malpractice.  Congressmen and women are not doctors.  They should stay completely out of the health care decision-making.

For more excellent coverage on philosophic, economic, and practical problems with ObamaCare, I fully endorse the writings at We Stand FIRM, run by doctor Paul Hsieh.

Google's compromise

In 2006, Google decided to enter China in order to offer search capabilities.  The Chinese government demanded a filter on certain content items, such as key words "human rights".  Google, knowing this to be wrong, launched google.cn anyways with the filters in place.  Their reasoning at the time was in essence the greater good would be served.  Its okay to sacrifice a few people (those seeking political change in China) for the many (those in need of better search services).  They were willing to compromise their mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally useful and accessible". 

Google has belatedly decided to remove the filter in response to cyber attacks on their servers from the Chinese government.  China's actions come as no surprise to those of us who understand the nature of freedom, or the lack thereof in China. 

The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. - Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness [bold mine]

If Google is looking for a pat on the back for their change of heart, they won't get it here.  They knowingly perpetuated violations of individual rights by allowing the Chinese government of forcibly control the information shared between individuals.  Their change in policy does not negate the great wrong they committed over the past 4 years. 

Climate change

The latest revelations of climategate is not all that surprising considering the politicized nature of the scientific research in this area.  Just one more example of why the government should not fund science.

Your feelings are illegal

Last night, my wife and I watched Equilibrium again.  The premise behind the movie is that the people of the near future decide that feelings lead to war, and to avoid war, feelings must be suppressed.  A drug is administered to help suppress those emotions.  Any individual that exhibits any emotion is guilty of "sensing" and is condemned to death.

It struck me, as I was watching this movie, that this may represent the Kantian ideal of "Pure Reason".  I'm by no means an expert on Kant's philosophy and have only read a smattering of his works, so anyone that can correct me, please do.  Kant sees reason has somehow separate from reality.  Accordingly, reason does not have all the messy details of human consciousness, nor the smattering complexities of emotions.  Reason, according to Kant, deals just with abstract ideas and their relationship with one another.

From this premise, Kant argues in his tomb on ethics, that personal values are irrelevant.  This makes sense when we consider that values first originate from our ability to feel.  As children, most of our values are based on pleasure and pain.  But as we age, the concepts of value become increasing more abstract, forming as adults a hierarchy of values that (hopefully) is based objectively in reality.  If, as Kant argues, feelings mess up pure reason, than anything based on feelings should be suppressed.  Our values are a manifestation of our feelings.  Therefore, our values should be suppressed.  This leads Kant to advocate altruism as the ethical ideal.

In the movie, there are hints of the altruist ideal and a profound lack of individuality within this society.  Art, music, and color are missing from the world and any found are immediately destroyed. There is no love, no friendships, and no social interaction.  Everything is for the "father".

What really scares me about this movie is that it is not that far off from reality.  Consider the criminalization of "hate", that has gained so much popularity lately. You know, we can't let these evil feelings out in the public.  Gotta suppress them.  Or rather...maybe we oughta consider the consequences of following Kant's philosophy.  And instead of criminalizing feelings or thoughts, let's live.  Let's live rationally, objectively, and with pride.

Facts are stubborn things

Professor John Lewis of Duke University has performed an invaluable service by carefully analyzing the health care bill. His result provides answers to the below questions by quoting relevant sections from the bill:

1. WILL THE PLAN RATION MEDICAL CARE?
2. Will the plan punish Americans who try to opt out?
3. what constitutes “acceptable” coverage?
4. Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?
5. Does the plan TAX successful Americans more THAN OTHERS?
6. Does THE PLAN ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO set FEES FOR SERVICES?
7. Will THE PLAN increase the power of government officials to SCRUTINIZE our private affairs?
8. Does the plan automatically enroll Americans in the GOVERNMENT plan?
9. Does THE PLAN exempt federal OFFICIALS from COURT REVIEW?

Thank you Dr. Lewis. If any of these answers sound "fishy", be sure to report the bill to the White House.

AT&T's monopoly

I rather enjoy spending time in class exploding the myth that monopolies are created by excessive competition. In my lecture on the history of the telecommunications industry, I present the facts that destroy this myth, at least within the realm of AT&T's monopoly. In 1910s, Bell's second patent on the telephone had already expired. There were literally thousands of telephone companies in the U.S. at the time (always a shock to students). However, the U.S. government decided that AT&T should have a legal monopoly on all interstate telephone traffic. This essentially gave AT&T a competitive edge that no other telephone company could compete with. AT&T subsequently bought out or forced other companies to connect with their phone system, least they be marginalized. The result, AT&T controlled both the long distance and local telephone market.

On their exam, students must answer a question like the one below:

How did AT&T obtain a monopoly in long distance telephone service?
a) AT&T charged prices so high that no competitors could make enough profit to attract investors.
b) The federal government believed that communication was so important that AT&T should have a monopoly and regulated the market accordingly.
c) A band of outlaws enforced AT&T’s patents even after they officially expired.
d) None of the choices are correct.

The 1982 anti-trust case against AT&T was really one branch of government (federal court) telling another branch of government (FCC and congress) to stop supporting this monopoly. The consequences of this case is an entirely different matter.

When one focuses on the facts, it becomes obvious how real monopolies are created.

GM and its "reinvention"

This is what GM has labeled as progress:
"...Judge Robert E. Gerber of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved the sale of substantially all of General Motors Corporation’s assets to NGMCO, Inc., an entity funded by the U.S. Department of the Treasury."

"The new GM’s common stock will be owned by:
• U.S. Department of the Treasury: 60.8 percent
• UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust: 17.5 percent
• Canada and Ontario governments: 11.7 percent
• The old GM: 10 percent

"Additionally, the old GM and the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust will hold warrants that are exercisable for 15 percent and 2.5 percent of the interests in the new GM, respectively."

So now our government is officially an automaker. Its a travesty that it has come to this.

The danger of current search technology

After my visit to Pure Visibility (an Internet marketing company) last Friday, I got to thinking about the limitations with current search engines.

Google is doing a lot of things right with search. They have implemented universal search, returning images, videos, and maps as well as traditional websites from search strings. They have added website quick links to search results so that users can navigate to sub-pages faster. They have spent millions of dollars on optimizing their search algorithms to return the best results they can from search terms.

But with all the good they are bringing to search there has always been a problem I have with the one thing that made them so successful early in their existence. And that is the premise that high search engine rankings are, in part, a popularity contest. A reputations system might be a more accurate term. The higher reputation a website has, in terms of other websites linking to it, they higher it is placed on the search results page. While there is nothing inherently wrong with reputation systems (after all they are just tools), it continues to perpetuate misinformation in the form of highly reputed content that does not deserve to be.

Take, for instance, a search for "Barack Obama Chrysler bankruptcy". One of the first news stories is from CBS. It stated that:

Mr. Obama praised the sacrifices made by the autoworkers' union and the majority debtholders, whose concessions gave officials hope that Chrysler would be able to restructure without filing for Chapter 11. But the small hedge funds who hold 30 percent of Chrysler's outstanding debt held out for "an unjustified taxpayer bailout," according to the president.

Leaving aside CBS's lack of accurate reporting of the facts. Consider that most American's that want to research this issue is presented with these types of articles.

The next few highest search offer similar titles:
Obama Blasts Hedge Funds Over Chrysler Bankruptcy Holdout
Obama Points to New Villain in Chrysler Bankruptcy: Hedge Funds ...

Not one article in the top ten seriously questioned Obama's role in the bankruptcy. Bankruptcy law has a long history in the U.S. Never, to my knowledge, has a sitting president played such an active role in a bankruptcy proceeding. Regardless of the motivation you may input upon Obama, the truth is, the only reason he would become involved in the process is if he wanted the outcome to be different than the rule of law would suggest. Articles, such as this one at the Ayn Rand Center or this one at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required to view the article), show how the perversion of bankruptcy law is being sold to the general media.

Google search based largely on reputation misses these important links.

A changing tide?

Last November, I noted that Obama's morality is one shared by the villains of Atlas Shrugged. Obama was quoted saying, "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness." [Bold mine]. It was unclear if Obama, refers to selfishness in the same way as I do. Whether he regards selfishness as a short-term, hedonistic, whim based value system or as a long-term, objective, rational based value system (I believe the latter). But it was clear that Obama believes altruism is moral system that should be applied to politics.

In the comments of that post, Burgess Laughlin made an interesting point. Essentially, he said that Obama will make an easy target. Because Obama's political and moral views are so explicit, it will be much easier for defenders of freedom to pin-point the errors, flaws, and out-right destructiveness in Obama's policies.

What has happened since November? Defenders of rational, self-interested values and lovers of freedom have been busy - for a small sampling check out this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this (The list goes on and on. My appologizes if I missed some good ones). Burgess was spot on with his comment. Obama is a bulls-eye.

In an interview with EdNews.org, Yaron Brook said in response to the question "What would John Galt say about the programs proposed by President Obama"

"Again, I don't want to be presumptuous and speak for John Galt, but certainly everything Obama is proposing today parallels what the political villains in Atlas Shrugged were proposing—and we know what John Galt thought of their actions. From Obama's first day in office, he has engaged in massive violations of individual rights and massive redistribution of wealth."

Indeed, they do parallel the villians of Atlas Shrugged. My assessment of Obama's philosophy has been (unfortunately) proven true.

But there is hope. The rise in Atlas Shrugged sales, the growth of "Tea Parties" protesting the growth of our government and attacks on our freedoms, and the frequent mention of Ayn Rand in the media give evidence that the ideas of Objectivism are not dying. Objectivism is not a philosophy of a few hard core fans. The ideas of Objectivism are spreading. They are spreading faster than I would have anticipated, mostly because of Obama's presidency.

Will Objectivist ideas take hold in our culture? I believe they are starting too, but its just a start. The right ideas must be defended and done so with vigor. I'm begining to see a glimour of hope in the not to distant future. I, for one, plan to step up my advocacy of reason, facts, individual rights, and freedom.

6 degrees of separation

My wife (1) has a friend (2) who is a nurse. This friend of my wife forwarded her a link of a blog of a physician (3). This physician's blog had a link to none other than Paul Hsieh's (4) FIRM. I meet Paul's wife, Diana (5), at a camp we both worked at a few years ago. So I'm less than 6 degrees of separation from my wife :)

On the serious side:
The best news is that the medical community is paying attention to Paul's articles (whether or not they agree with him is another matter). But its extremely encouraging to witness the spread of his work. Objectivism can make great inroads into our culture with more activists like Paul. Go Paul!

Another sad day for the Internet

Apparently, Obama wants to further deny property rights, this time to the telecom companies that provide Internet access. Obama nominated Julius Genachowski to head the Federal Communications Commission.

Genachowski is a strong supporter of net neutrality. Net neutrality proponents demand that telecommunication companies not control what content flows through their lines. Even if excessive use of peer-to-peer transfers of illegal files overwhelms the network, telecom companies would be forbidden, according to net neutrality, to self-regulate the traffice to provide better service to the masses of other customers. This is a clear violation of individual rights. If the telecom companies cannot control their own property, what's the point? Yet sadly, Congress seems to have no intent on stopping the nomination.

Stimulus bill will destroy medicine

via Gus van Horn, an article by Betsy McCaughey highlighting some provisions placed into the stimulus bill that will directly effect our health care.

Several aspects of this bill are particularly scary. According to Betsy:

"But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective."

My interpretation...no longer will a doctor be able to do what is in your best interest as his patient. Now the doctor must do what is in the best interest of the federal government. You may think that this will minimally affect your health. You would be wrong. Tom Daschle, who is strongly behind this part of the bill, wants to limit medical technology. Betsy states its all in Daschle's book.

"The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system." [Bold added]

What is so horrific is that most people will not directly see the effects. They will continue to go to their doctors and continue to see care, but they will not see the lost opportunities in medical breakthroughs, nor hear about the missed medical procedures that doctors are not allowed to do because our federal government does not deem it acceptable.

If you feel as strongly about these issues as I do, please contact your politicians and let them know what you think.

Put up or shut up?

Here is a man who is willing to stand, and eat, by his arguments. Ari Armstrong claims that the amount of money provided with food stamps is more than enough for a healthy diet. "Armstrong, who previously spent a month eating for $2.57 per day... will spend February 4-10 eating a highly nutritious, low-carb diet for less than food stamps provide. (Now at $4.74 per day)" [Bold added.] This diet will consist of mostly meats, vegetables, and fruits. No filler foods like pasta, potatoes, Ramon noodles, or the like.

Mr. Armstrong also offers to help evaluate family meal plans (for the first 5 interested) to achieve this goal.

Now this is a man I can admire. He decided to put up when challenged on his beliefs. He also rightly notes that government subsides do violate our property rights...stealing from one person to give to another. But the ludicrous assumption that we are not stealing enough from one person to give to another person so that other person can eat enough to live...well, its just flat wrong.

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

For the past few months I've been reading the abridged version of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Penguin Classics). Its part of my new interest in history that has fueled my purchase, but the book tends to drag on in parts. So I'm torn between periods of boredom and periods of extreme fascination. Last night, I found one of the periods of extreme fascination.

Gibbon details how barbarian law differs from Roman law. It follows the fall of the Western Empire (~500 AD). My takeway was that with Roman law, while far from perfect, still had strong elements of a rule by law and at least a nod towards justice, rather than a rule by muscle. The barbarian law that took effect after Roman jurisprudence left. The barbarians worshiped strength, bravery, and fighting skills. When it came to law, what mattered was not evidence of a wrongful act, but your character. So, to be acquitted of a charge, you needed to have people stand up and vouch for your character. Depending on the severity of the crime, the more or less people that needed to vouch for your character.

And even if you committed a wrongful act, you could compensate those wrongly hurt with money and be done with it...even murder. So basically, a priced was levied on everyone's head. If you had enough gold, you could kill whomever you wanted, as long as you paid in gold.

In this one chapter, I found the evidence of the connections between several parts of Rand's politics as she described in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. The relationship between rule of muscle and mob rule. The relationship between rule by force and rule by faith. The relationship (or lack thereof) between rule of force and justice. The relationship between morality and politics. And why rule of force is morally evil...hence the description of this period as the "Dark Ages".

As others have said more eloquently then me, in order to understand politics today, you should study history. Here indeed is a great example.

Obama's philosophy exposed

As if we didn't have enough evidence of Obama's anti-American, socialistic, altruistic philosophy, he has recently added a phrasing that strikes terror in me as to the state and possibly the depths of his understanding of philosophy.

"...John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/obamas-new-atta.html

Could it be that Obama is keenly aware of Rand's book? It seems hard to fathom that a politician would invent this phrasing unless they were aware of its history, particularly with regard to its connection to politics. Regardless of my speculation about this knowledge of Rand, this statement shows that Obama understands the link between politics and morality and that he clearly, unequivocally stands with altruism. Whether or not he has read Atlas Shrugged, he wants to be one of her villains. I truly can't imagine a worse candidate for president.

Free speech at EMU

Yesterday I noticed a large crowd in front of the library at EMU. Several of the individuals in the crowd were carrying signs of which I could not read. If figured some sort of protest or campaign was taking place, but did not see a reason to investigate further. Today I received the following email from the President of the University.

Our campus community has been challenged over the past few days as a result of the activities of several individuals who are not affiliated in any way with the University. As many of you are aware, while stationed outside of Halle Library, these individuals have proceeded to express their views on a variety of subjects. Some of these comments have been both hurtful and offensive to many members of the campus community. Students, faculty and staff have expressed concern that the activities of these individuals are not consistent with the values of the University that seek to promote an appreciation of human diversity and the maintenance of an atmosphere of tolerance and mutual respect. While I share the concerns that many of you have expressed, I must also note with great pride that the University, as a public institution of higher education, is strongly committed and legally obligated to promote and protect the rights of all individuals to engage in free and open debate on campus, however controversial the subject area. As many of you may be aware, individuals expressing similar views have for a number of years annually visited our campus as well as many other college campuses within Michigan and the region. When students, faculty and staff encounter these individuals this week or in the future, one option is to avoid any invitation to engage in dialogue or to stop and create an audience if you disagree with their views. Please note that the University’s Public Safety Department and other campus officials have been and will continue to monitor this situation on site to ensure that there are no violations of the law and to protect the safety of our students. Finally, I am asking Provost Loppnow to organize an educational campus forum about the issues that this event has raised so we can all learn from this moment on our campus. In the past, university communities came together to have “teach-ins” that educated and provided the opportunity to express different points of view. [bold added]

This statement gives me hope that if an Objectivist speaker came to EMU to speak on topics such as the Danish cartoons, our president would continue the tradition of protecting free speech.