If you don't know what's going on in Venezuela just yet, click on the link below.
For an overview, check out this article on their site: Is John Galt Venezuelan?
If someone were to sum up everything I ever found wrong with the state of modern philosophy, this would be it. Note the source.
This is pretty funny: U.S. food programs 'make the poor obese'
"The U.S. government's food aid programs for low-income people are contributing to the high obesity rates of America's poor, according to a recent report from a Washington think thank.
In his paper, Besharov, director of AEI's social and individual responsibility project, notes that that the U.S. government now spends billions annually on its three major programs to help feed the poor: $18 billion on food stamps; $8 billion on school breakfasts and lunches; and $5 billion on the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, which provides food directly to mothers and children.
He says these programs are driven not by an emphasis on healthy eating habits that could help stymie the costly problem of obesity, but by outdated policies that contribute to obesity. Such policies ignore the fact that Americans are much more likely today to be at risk from health problems related to overeating and obesity than those that arise from lack of food. "
I've written a new essay on the nature of rights and government. Check it out: You Own Your Life!
In case you haven't seen it before, I've recently updated my art gallery.
Also, check out another one of my recent projects.
Here is the headline from today's MSNBC science story:
"A growing number of scientists say President Bush's administration is distorting the scientific advisory process by appointing conservative ideologues to panels that are supposed to be impartial. They fear the appointments are politically motivated and meant to delay decision-making affecting controversial areas such as the environment, abortion and workplace safety. Administration officials say they are merely looking for diverse views and accuse the critics themselves of playing politics."
It is never mentioned that this is the inevitable results of government funding scientific research. When tax dollars rather than private investment funds research, political ideology by scientific amateur (politicians) determines which direction the research heads in. The inevitable result is that popularity and pull determine what area gets research funds, while the unpopular yet most promising areas are left behind. Just notice how AIDS is kills very few American's versus heart disease or cancer yet gets significantly higher research funds than the two major killers.
The article does not mention what standard politicians are supposed to use to determine which scientific and medical projects show the most promise, other than "diverse views." Clearly, this is not an adequate standard - imagine NASA hiring both engineers and UFO-nuts to foster "diverse views." Popularity is also not a suitable standard, since the popular scientists are the champions of the big discoveries of the past, not the future. Unfortunately, when your own investment money is not at stake, the only remaining standard to guide research dollars is political pull, which is exactly what happens in Washington.
Inspired by Tim's letter to ArtRenewal.com, I wrote a an essay dedicated to the evils of modern art. Here is the intro:
Today's rant is dedicated to the general and overwhelming mediocrity of "modern art". No, "mediocre" is too mild a word. Modern art is horrible! Pathetic! Rubbish! It has about as much artistic value as a sewage dump! No, I still cannot express just how pathetic modern art is. A sewage dump has but one purpose: to store sewage, and it may do it well, but modern art is such a complete failure qua art, that there is no term to describe it other than anti-art, the epitome of what art is not, and should not be.
The speech went really well -- we had over 160 people show up, and with the help of notecards for Q&A, there wasn't any of the usual protest when it comes to abortion. Check out the photos.
Here is the letter I sent to the Batt today:
During the last two weeks, the A&M Objectivism Club has been organizing a speech called "Pro-Choice Is Pro-Life: The Philosophical Basis for a Woman's Right to Abortion." Because this is a very controversial topic, we expected a fair amount of controversy, but what we did not expect was for our fliers to be torn down with such aggressiveness by our opposition.
As a poor college student, printing hundreds of fliers is a significant cost to me and the other members, and reflects our strong opinions on the issue and our desire to share our views with our fellow Aggies. Monday afternoon, another member and I spent several hours putting up 500 fliers all over campus. When I went to class this morning however, I discovered that nearly all of those fliers had been torn down, leaving the other groups' fliers around them intact. This action is only indicative of a larger history of tearing down and even vandalizing our fliers and posters.
It seems to me that no one who is confident in the truth of his or her position would be so desperate to silence his opposition for fear that they will change their audience's mind. However, this has not been the case, as some unknown groups or individuals have decided for the rest of Texas A&M which issues and arguments students deserve to hear. I hope that my fellow Aggies will agree with me that no matter what your stance is, each side deserves an opportunity to present its ideas in a public forum, and censure their friends or groups when they decide to go on their next "censorship run."
Preparing for Dr. Bernstein's speech this Wednesday has been more of a challenge than I expect. Today, I went on a flier run with Keenan and posted 500 flier within an hour. Unfortunately, the flier misspelled the word "Objectivist" as "Abjectivist," though we figured people wouldn't read that part anyway.
I am well aware that I have very unique, and in fact radical views on just about everything when compared to the rest the world. It is hard enough to find friends who share my views, and even harder to find girls who share enough of my view on life to start a relationship with. Until now, I've never defined just what traits I'd look for in a partner, so I think it's about time I gave the matter some thought.
There are probably about 0.0 people on earth who share my exact views, and even if I did find someone who matched all my philosophy exactly, I'd probably be bored to death becuase we'd have very little to talk about! So, looking for someone who matches my positions and values on everything would clearly be unproductive.
If, on the other hand, I ignored my values when looking for a girl, I would not benefit from a relationship any more than if I had found no one at all. If I relied on my good looks, ambition, and money (hah!), I might be able to get a girl in bed without too much trouble, but it would be an empty victory. Sex is neither an end in itself, nor an act solely of friction and hormones, but should be a celebration of shared values, ideals, and achievements. Sleeping with (or just dating) someone who did not share my values, no matter how attractive, would be like getting a big and shiny trophy without having won or deserved it. It might impress the rest of world, but it would only be a facade hiding a lack of self-confidence or true achievement.
Clearly then, any rational person who thinks of love and sex as more than mere social ritual or instinctive urges needs to have a standard for a potential mate, and in the first post dedicated to my personal life in nine months of blogging, I have decided to do just that by narrowing down the essential traits a person would have to have for me to begin a relationship with them. I would probably narrow the qualifications even more for a life partner, but here are the essentials of the "sense of life" that form my prerequisites to a relationship:
I was looking on ebay for an ICQ #, when I came across 5 AOL cd's. I can't believe anyone would pay $ for AOL cd's but then people sell all kinds of crazy stuff on ebay, including snow, Grandma, kids, and even their virginity.
Well, most of it. They cut out all the controversial and philosophical stuff. See the original, and the version they published.
Let me brag about my cool schedule for a minute. I am taking history of political thought (with all the classics, from Plato to Machiavelli), American political thought, American foreign policy, industrial organization, and economic development - definitely the best schedule I have had in my last four years at A&M!
From Drudge:
ON LARRY KING LIVE, PENN MADE A COMPELLING, FOCUSED CASE AGAINST THE IRAQI WAR, ADVOCATING DIALOGUE BEFORE BOMBS.
JOINED IN PROGRESS...
PENN: ...IT IS, UM, IMPORTANT. I AM RESPONSIBLE. WENT TO LEARN. I HAVE SEEN AND KNOW. YEAH, IT IS COMPLICATED. SURE, BAGHDAD. NO, MUCH IS REPELLENT ABOUT IT. WE HAVE FAMILIES. BELONG IN BELLEVUE. THEY DID. DISEASE. INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY. I DID NOT GO AS A JOURNALIST. AFTER THE 1991 BOMBINGS, IT WAS SOLD TO THE PEOPLE. AND THE STARVATION, I SAY THIS AS A FATHER OF CHILDREN. YES, I DO.
KING: DID YOUR WIFE WANT YOU TO?
PENN: THEY MAKE IT BUFFOONERY, WELL, IT IS A NERVE-WRACKING THING. BUT I AM MORE SHY FROM THE SHAME I WILL FEEL. NO, THIS IS A MISCONCEPTION OF THE CURRENT NARCISSISM OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY. MORE THAN TWENTY HOURS ON A PLANE. YOU START TO THINK. YOU DO. IT IS NOT GOOD TO BE FAMOUS. WHEN I WANT TO GIGGLE, I TURN ON BILL O'REILLY. ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS I HAVE SOMETHING I WANT TO DO. I AM QUITE CRAZY ABOUT IT, BUT IT MAKES ME CRAZY. GULF WAR COST $82 BILLION.
KING: WOULD YOU GO TO NORTH KOREA?
PENN: IRAQ NOT POLITICAL IS HUMAN. I DONT SPEAK OUT MUCH, BUT I FEEL IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO SPEAK OUT AS MUCH AS I CAN. BAGHDAD. CONSCIENCE, AND I DID FEEL, UM, COULD BE GREAT TO TRY TO, UM, DIALOGUE. ARMS INSPECTORS. REALLY UNAMERICAN. MURDOCH. BECAUSE I AM A FATHER. I'D LIKE TO WRITE MORE. NOT PROLIFIC TO WRITE SCRIPT. TO BE DIRECTOR. YES, SURE. CHILDREN BOMBS IN CONSCIOUSNESS, CAN'T READ ARABIC. THANK YOU, LARRY...
KING: GNARLY, DUDE.
James Ostrowski has an interesting piece on Noam Chomsky in today's Mises article. I knew Chomsky was a Marxist, but Ostrowski elegantly refutes his views, and shows just how clueless he is. Take a look!
But if you want to see my old one, you can switch back...and forth.
Update: for what is likely going to be a brief time, my homepage is VALID XHTML 1.0
Update #2: I've created a cool new table-free all-CSS layout.
I've written a new op-ed, Putting Liberals into Context" and updated my site a bit, including a new downloads section on my projects page.
I'm working on some new websites and learning PHP/MySQL in the process. Check out Capitalism Worldwide to see one of the PHP/MySQL content management sites I have been developing. I celebrated New Year's at Laurel's parent's place, and took lots of pictures, but unfortunately, my BRAND NEW digital camera broke on my way home :-(