Ascension's Gate Part III: Full Circle

Here's the completion of Ascension's Gate. If you'd like to check out Parts I and II, or my other art projects, please check out my YouTube channel:

http://jp.youtube.com/user/bakukenshin



http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=rWT5CJjy1W0

Let Freedom Ring! Vote for Bob Barr!

I just have to say I saw this and I was moved. It has been so long since I have heard a presidential candidate say what needs to be said. It has been so long since I have heard a candidate praise what our nation was built on rather than apologize for those who made us great. Have the courage to fight the destruction of our freedom. Have the courage to vote for Bob Barr.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxPrULE6dUU

Dr. Anne Wortham: Objectivism and the Black Community

I stumbled across this interview with Dr. Anne Wortham and I have to say I'm impressed. I remember vividly that when I was in college I would propose that people should be judged by their merits rather than by their race, creed, or religious beliefs. At such times, I would be labeled as racist or intolerant. I could never grasp the reason. How can the assertion that race simply just NOT be a factor in our decisions--how can that be racist?

The assertion seemed to be that minorities deserve guarantees of jobs, guarantees of opportunities whereas those who aren't privileged enough to be a member of that group deserve no guarantees. What I felt then, and what I've come to know now, is that these guarantees must come from somewhere. Somebody must be sacrificed for the sake of them. If the job goes to somebody based on race, that means that somebody else is not getting the job, also based on race. This is pure racism. If somebody gets the job because they are the most qualified, then the reason why somebody else doesn't get the job is because they aren't qualified. This is only fair. The goal, I think is to remove race as a consideration in our evaluation of people rather than to emphasize it and thereby create unnecessary divisions among our human kin.

It is for this reason that I found Dr. Wortham's comments in this interview particularly refreshing. Only by replacing the culture of entitlement with the culture of self-empowerment can any minority hope to better its people. I hope you find her comments as enlightening as I did.


11/8/2008: I apologize but it's been brought to my attention that the video was removed from YouTube for a terms of use violation. The original interview was entitled "Another View of the Civil Rights Movement: Anne Wortham" and was part of a series called "A World of Ideas" featuring Bill Moyers. I couldn't find it at amazon, but a google search will bring up places where it can be purchased online. I highly recommend it.

12/5/2009: The video is back on YouTube! I don't know for how long, so check it out while you can!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpWEM2Z9yn8



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS1qhBxiIQY

Pope a Hypocrite: Hoards Gold and Condemns Greed

Today's case study in what is wrong with the world is drawn from this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25754069/

The headline reads: "Pope urges young to spurn the 'spiritual desert' : He challenges crowd of 200,000 to help world turn away from materialism"

Aside from the many many philosophical problems I have with attacks on materialism, greed, and selfishness. And aside from the many many problems I have with those who promote altruism over rational egoism. Aside from these things, is there anything more hypocritical than the figurehead of the Catholic church berating people for enjoying personal comfort that they have at least done something to earn? Has anyone out there even seen the amount of gold that decks out the Vatican? If not, here's some pics:


If they're so earnest about sacrifice, why don't they lead by example and distribute church wealth to the needy rather than trying to make us feel guilty for spending the money that we earned with our labor? I mean, after all, who deserves their money more? Some guy who works his ass off every day of his life? Or some fat and indolent preacher-boy who's never done anything but sit in a high chair and rattle off how worthless people are? I'd bet on the worker over the preacher any day.

And, hell. While we're on the topic of greed and materialism anyway, why don't we look into this "spiritual desert" and see what's really going on there.

"In so many of our societies, side by side with material prosperity, a spiritual desert is spreading: an interior emptiness, an unnamed fear, a quiet sense of despair," the pope is quoted as saying. He blames this on greed and materialism and people turning away from faith. I would argue that this despair, this fear is spreading as a direct result of the faithful. And if not directly through religion than indirectly through secular altruism.

How can a person have self-esteem, if the more successful they are at their job (and therefore more successful monetarily)--How can they have self-esteem if the better they are, the more guilty they are supposed to feel? How come excellence and the demand of greater rewards for greater excellence is condemned as a sin? If someone is good, then, dammit, they deserve more. We NEED good teachers, we NEED good doctors, we NEED good engineers. But how do we expect to find people who can fulfill these needs? Should we expect them to appear magically and just perform these functions because that is their nature? Or do we have to assure that they have an equitable return on their efforts, so that they are self-motivated to perform these functions in society? Yet oddly enough, we turn around and condemn the people who are doing exactly what we are paying them to do, we condemn them for being TOO good.

Has anyone who has sat down and blindly condemned people for greed actually fully thought this through? As we progressively enact more laws, and the religious organizations gather more followers, and the secular humanists jump on the band wagon and berate rampant selfishness and the profit motive, has anyone noticed the corresponding erosion of the economy, rampant inflation and critical shortages of teachers, nurses, mathematicians, and engineers? Perhaps the faithful are hoping that they can merely pray and have God magically deliver the trained professionals who will keep the engine of global civilization running. Or perhaps they think that those who are capable of providing those services should do so simply for the sake of all those who can't, and should serve humbly, apologetically, and with head bowed in shame for the epic force of will and dedication of mind necessary to accomplish such feats of creation as has never been known to the leaders of the religious front.

What insights have popes or cardinals or imams given us as to the structure of the universe or the fate of humanity? None. Not a thing. All they have done is preached how near disaster we are, and how we should abandon reason, when reason is needed most. Can the pope build a railroad? Can he erect a building that will not fall? Can he conjure more food from the ground or purify our water? Can he answer the dual needs of protecting the environment while not stifling economic prosperity? Can he do any of these things? NO.

All the pope can do is pray, and berate and cajole and beg. And for what? Why is he doing all this needling? Is it for the good of humanity, as he would claim? Or is it so that he can take advantage of the poor, the ignorant, and the ashamed? He'll casually accept money from the poor, and claim that it is going to help those in need. As he wears gold crowns and lives in a gold bedecked palace. He'll gleefully accept the donations of the guilty rich who, ashamed of their own prowess, seek to assuage the moral conflict that rages inside them by hoping to buy their way into paradise. And the ignorant, the church will gratefully embrace the ignorant, because to embrace God requires no discipline of the mind, it requires no rigor of thought, no effort of will. All it takes is the effort of release, of everything.

If you release your mind, your body, your will, your judgment, your soul, your self-esteem, and your pride, then you will be beloved of god. If you destroy everything there is that makes you who you are, if you destroy anything and everything that makes life good and worth living, then you will be saved by god. God wants to destroy you. The religious want nothing less than the spiritual destruction of humanity. That is why the absolute sacrifice is the symbol of their faith. The absolute of death is sacrosanct in every major religion.

Death is the ideal. A noble death is a noble goal in every major religion. No religion abhors death and reveres life to the extent that they would say, "Live your life to the best of your ability and enjoy those fruits of that ability for they are the mark of your best nature." No, instead they claim that the very qualities that enable you to survive are the qualities that you must apologize for. They claim that the more able you are to live, the more guilty you should feel. That is because, in faith, we are all expected to want to die, but not being able to, should feel guilt for our life.

How perverted and despicable a promise to humankind! Such a miserable and filthy demand! To demand that all should die to fulfill the warped philosophy of the incompetent. To demand that the worthy apologize to the unworthy, that the able apologize endlessly to the inept.

Wouldn't it be a better world, if we all stood as equals--not in the sense of some guarantee--but in the sense of having equal rights to the fruits of our own labor? That we could stand shoulder to shoulder with giants and thank them for all that they have given us in the terms of an easier, safer, healthier life. We could thank them, and allow them the freedom to enjoy the fruits of that inestimable boon they have granted us. Without guilt. Without shame. Proud and radiant as human beings, all of us. Proud that we have done the work that we were best able to do, no matter what work that is. Proud of what we have attained, and created, and managed to preserve around us.

Would it matter if we all cannot be a Vanderbilt, or an Einstein, or even an Elvis? We do what we can. We build what we can. Does anyone have the right to begrudge another the results of their own work, whatever work that may be?

I say NO! I say ENOUGH! The time has come to stay this madness. Reject religion. Reject the secular altruists who preach freedom on one side, and berate the use of it on the other. Reject all those who would offer you a collar in exchange for your self-esteem. Do not be seduced by the prospect of harvesting the wealth of those you envy--for all that road promises is that you will be sacrificed to those who envy yours.

Defend your freedom. And do it not for the good of others. Do it not for the good of generations to come, or for the protracted and unseeable future. Do it for yourself! Do it for the now! Reject all forms of statism, nationalism, religion--all forms of spiritual and physical sacrifice. Claim your birthright, claim that which is yours, not because I say so, but because you earned it. Reject the claims of all those who savor the unearned, who would make you a slave and expect you to be grateful for it. Fight them, do what you can. Speak, blog, vote, protest. We cannot afford to surrender. To surrender is to embrace death.

Religion: Laugh Your Ass Off

I've been thinking lately. Maybe the reason that religion gets to cling on to it's social respectability despite all the vicious, maniacal, and just plain ludicrous stuff it tries to get away with--maybe the reason is that we all take it so seriously. I mean what would happen, if we just laughed our asses off whenever somebody said they believed in God? What would happen if we just doubled over with tears streaming out of our eyes whenever somebody even mentioned heaven, hell, Satan, Jesus, Mohammad or Buddha? I guess it makes it harder to laugh at people who are really intent on enslaving and/or killing you (though not necessarily in that order). Anyways, a world were we could just laugh those silly freaks away and not have to worry about them anymore, is a world worth working for. Until then, here's a taste of what it might feel like to be able to laugh them all away:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ope-1Zb5t-k

Pope John Paul II was an Atheist! -- Breaking News of a Startling Analysis

Yes, here it is. A brilliant piece of deductive reasoning using the deceased Pope's very own words to expose what must have been the ideology driving them. After watching this, there should be no doubt that the Pope, the figurehead of Catholicism was, indeed, an atheist. It's so rare to actually catch out one of the religious figureheads in giving away the game. I highly recommend this:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P29YD5Yz6yk

Ashcroft - Torture Bad Call but No Biggie

Today for your perusal I offer a selection of disingenuous moral shuffling. Enjoy reading this, it's not every day you get to see someone squirm their way through such an ethical sewer and still think of themselves as squeaky clean. It's rare to see it painted so clearly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25723287/

Ashcroft quibbles that he "did not necessarily disagree" with the idea of state sponsored torture, but that the legal argument was flawed. So, rather than admit that he made a mistaken judgment call, he's simply asserting that torture is still an appropriate form of interrogation and that all that is really needed is a more properly worded argument for it. Take a second to let that soak in.

Ashcroft says that torture is good. We just need a better justification for it.

Ashcroft doesn't see the deep moral, philosophical, and political implications of the permissibility of torture. He ignores the same issues of which I have accused Sam Harris of dodging. Or perhaps he does.

Think about that too. What if Ashcroft DOES understand the ramifications of what he is supporting? What if Sam Harris DOES understand the ramifications of what he is supporting? Can you really be secure in granting them the benefit of the doubt on something like this? I mean, seriously, if we're going to give people the benefit of the doubt on something like advocating torture, where do we stop? I mean, once we've said, well maybe we're not clear on all the details, but you're the government so we trust that you won't do bad things, so go ahead and do what you please...once we've said THAT, what's to stop them from revoking the rest of the trappings of civilized society?

Oh, wait....they've started doing that too. Isn't this the same Ashcroft, the same establishment governance that thinks it's also a good idea to spy on American citizens at home, without notice, warning, or reasonable grounds for suspicion. To spy on us JUST IN CASE?

Suspending habeas corpus...oh, yes...of course we have that too. Violating the territorial rights of our allies and their respective domestic constitutions by violating their decisions on torture and due process? Well, there's a reason why "extraordinary rendition" is so extraordinary.

Surely we still have our right to property? Oh, wait a second. We have the IRS, property tax, and the FED to systematically redistribute the fruits of our labor, threaten our right to hold land which we have already purchased, AND to devalue the currency of whatever value remains.

And for what? For the greater good? Tell me, what good does it do when the people who are generating the wealth end up going hungry? The wealth which is being stolen hand over fist to feed those in need who are taking it hand over fist? The wealth that, for some reason that nobody wants to address, was somehow magicked into existence for this mythically privileged class. It doesn't seem to matter that people are automatically condemned for being wealthy EVEN IF they started out poor. As if, by producing that which people desperately wanted was enough to brand one a criminal. The sheer audacity, the reckless suicidal mendacity of such thinking frankly leaves me stunned whenever I encounter it.

So, in this amoral morass of sympathy and equivocation, the final crowning glory of the altruist's inner nature finally bares itself to the world. And what does it declare to the world? It declares that torture is good, but that we just haven't found a good enough way to get away with it.

Classic.

(for more articles on the ongoing torture debate please check out these blog entries:

Sam Harris and the Fallacies of Torture 4/25/2008

And this is what happens when thugs get moral license... 4/26/2008

Torture: The Madness that Wouldn't Die 5/13/2008

Supreme Court Puts Foot Down on Abrogation of Due Process 6/15/2008

Not Everything that Parades as a Democracy IS a Democracy 7/2/2008

Hitchens Takes One for Reason 7/13/2008 )

Who Will Care for your Children?

In case you didn't catch my earlier post on the subject:

http://anamericananti-theistabroad.blogspot.com/2008/07/not-enough-teachers-not-enough-nurses.html


But here again we have another symptom of the ongoing problem:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25692127/

See the problems when lumbering bureaucratic institutions make arbitrary decisions without any awareness of what is needed to actually realize the demands they place on the system?

Let me put it another way. What good does it do to demand that all students have access to a nurse when the number of nurses, how much they are paid, etc. is decided by a public board which has to vote on any related executive decision from tax allocation to job allocation?

What good does it do to demand teachers in a system which makes it impossible to satisfy its own demands?

The only solution is to privatize education, expose the schools to market forces and force the bureaucrats to produce results. Allow parents 100% freedom in where they send their children and remove education from the tax burden so that they can afford to send them. The alternative is to simply place more demands on the nurses (which we already know are in short supply). Should they do even more work for less pay?

If you set those terms, where are you going to find people wiling to work at the schools? Or do you really want the lowest bidder responsible for your child's health?

The choice is yours.

Hitchens Takes One for Reason

This blog entry is about an article by Christopher Hitchens here:

Believe Me, It’s Torture

I've talked at length in the past about my disdain for Sam Harris' cavalier advocacy of torture as some kind of intellectual common sense. So, I have to say that I have a lot of respect for someone who is willing to put themselves through something like this in order to make a point. I couldn't imagine Harris putting himself on the line for his ideas. And the point that Hitchens makes is a very important one. Namely, that if we surrender our dedication to human rights, and to our concept of humanity, then we are surrendering what makes us Americans. There are numerous strategic justifications for the use of torture, but the best argument against it is one of principle. Do we really wish to be a nation known for the use of torture? Do we really want our enemies to gain credence as the ones telling the truth? What exactly do we have to gain? And more terrifying....what do we have to lose?

And here is video footage of his experience:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y3raoKpfiM

Obama or McCain? Vote Bob Barr for President

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5-jKSRYdgc



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe-ulwqnQ9k



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HttZXK8n3rY



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqFrbRw5R_g

Abolish the Federal Reserve

I couldn't've said it better myself...So I won't try. Check out the video:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QHKJWm9IsM

Not Enough Teachers = Not Enough Nurses = Not Enough Teachers

There's a big question that I would have in response to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25626353/

And that big question is: WHY?

You see, as a student of finance, it seems highly unnatural that such a large distortion in the job market should appear. If there is such a high interest and so many students who want to learn nursing, then how can we possibly explain the lack of teachers? Simple. Government intervention in the economy.

Government subsidizes medical treatment and insurance thereby driving prices up. While at the same time a litigious culture and permissive judiciary drive the price of hospital insurance up. (Now of course, a doctor who causes harm through incompetence should be punished. But proper consideration of the patient's chances at survival if there had been no doctor at all should be weighed into the judgment.) These create a stress on the resources of hospitals. But, hospitals are, for the most part, private institutions so they have certain flexibility to raise wages, prices and respond to supply and demand.

But factor in things like minimum wage, taxes, insurance premiums etc. and we see a pressure on all businesses (not just hospitals) that keeps them from hiring the necessary personnel. Why? Because they are not free to respond to supply and demand in the labor market and that means that inequalities arise. The inequalities give rise to underemployment of the work force which means unemployment for the workers.

So why do we see too many applicants, not enough teachers, and a surplus of jobs? Well, because there are not enough teachers, there are not enough trained nurses. And if there are not enough trained nurses, then that almost certainly guarantees that there will not be enough trained teachers or nurses in the future as well. So, what is driving the teacher shortage? Well, it's simple. The rewards for entering the nursing profession are greater than the rewards entering the nurse training profession. The highly subsidized and legislated public higher education market has horribly skewed both the importance of teachers and the ability of universities to respond to market conditions. The obscenely high demand for nursing teachers should see a corresponding rise in benefits for those jobs. The free market would enable universities to respond to the demand for teachers by competing with the hospitals for those veterans that both need so desperately.

Unfortunately, for decades, our university system has been dedicated to antiquated systems based on seniority and wedded to sneering socialist dogma which scorns free-market ideals as base capitalism. They rush to suck up private funds, but sneer at the very systems which generate those funds. If their own systems were structured more efficiently, then there would be enough teachers. If you need more teachers, you need to make the terms more attractive. If you need better teachers, then you need to reward based on merit rather than on seniority or associations. You need to look at the work. And you need to pay people what they're worth. If any business tries to get away with anything less, it will inevitably either have a shortage of necessary labor, or it will be stifled with incompetent labor. So, because hospitals consistently offer better terms, the skilled nurses who could potentially become teachers go into the hospitals instead of the schools and only the few who choose to forsake those benefits go into education.

Government intervention kills. By creating market imbalances, by creating 'wormholes' in the fabric of the labor market, government creates unemployment, drives inflation and creates shortages of all kinds. If you want to know what is strangling the US economy it is the American people's mad quest for state-mandated security. Terrified to face the reality of shouldering responsibility for our own lives, our own careers, our own finances, choices, and the consequences of them. Terrified to face the facts of our existence, the fact that there can be no guarantees, the fact that we cannot avoid responsibility for our own actions, we can only defer the responsibility to others, and even then we are only deferring. We cannot run from the consequences of our folly forever. It comes back.

Reality cannot be fooled, schmoozed, or cajoled into letting you have your cake and eat it too. And the ultimate end of market imbalances is not a thing as sterile and intellectual as those words would make it seem. The cost of an economic imbalance is a human life. A dream thwarted unnecessarily by an arbitrary condition that never needed to have been. A life snuffed out, through poverty, exhaustion, despair or negligence. A life that never was. A child who will never have the opportunity to move up the social ladder because clutching and frantic paranoia has convinced so many that the only way to be secure is to hand over all choices to others, and those others (suffering from the same paranoia) have responded by securing their own supposed interests and locking the social ladder in place.

The foolishness that they refuse to recognize is that the more they lock that ladder in place, the more they undermine their own future prosperity and even survival. So whether you're a Republican clamoring for government subsidies for big business, or if you're a Democrat howling for universal health care you are in effect pleading for the same thing. You are pleading for the guarantee of your own interests at the expense of everybody else's. What you fail to see is that that it is also at the expense of your own interests to demand such things. That in the long run, it will come back to you.

When you are lying in the hospital with insufficient nurses taking advantage of your governmentally guaranteed health care, will it be a comfort to you to know that everybody will have the same quality of health care, regardless of how insufficient that health care will have become?

When you are baffled by the collapse of your stock prices despite the money you poured into government lobbies, when the real effect has been the collapse of an economy too top heavy with those very lobbies, will it comfort you to know that you were just doing what everybody else is doing?

When America runs blindly off of the cliff of mad devotion to equality and tolerance as a social absolute, a universal ideal, will it comfort you to know that all people will be guaranteed jobs even when no more jobs exist? When we lack the necessary teachers of math, science, and medicine today, what will you do when buildings collapse, planes fall from the sky, and you die from diseases for which there already are cures? Will you be comforted by the hollow ideal of sacrifice to God, nation, or society? Or will you scream and beg and plead for someone to come save you from the nightmare world of your own creation?

There is an alternative. Reverse the course we are going down. Do not overcorrect by doing more of the same thing which has created the various tragedies of our modern age. Change course. Do what has not even been tried. Set business free. Set yourselves free. Cut back the strangling tide of bureaucracy and neo-fascism which is threatening to tear our country apart into rival camps of those who would control our liberties through force and those who would control our liberties by finance, between Republicans and Democrats, between Big Brother and the last lingering relics of the idolaters of communism. Reject them both. Elect Bob Barr for President. And maybe we'll have a chance at putting this nation back together again.

Happy Science: Religious Cults in Supposedly Atheist Japan

It is not uncommon to hear Japan come up as an example of a predominantly atheistic nation which seems to do just fine by itself. Although as a long-time resident of Japan, one thing that has always disturbed me is the widespread proliferation of superstitions, lucky charms, and that which feeds on such things: cults.

The nefarious Aum Shinrikyo cult which was responsible for the sarin nerve gas attacks on the Tokyo subway system in 1995. It amazingly still had about 1500 to 2000 members as of 2004 and has regrouped itself under the name Aleph. At it's height, it had approximately 40,000 members worldwide. This is, of course, small by the standards of the great blood-thirsty world religions. But they ended up killing 12 and injuring an estimated 5000 commuters as a result of their madness.It just goes to show that small fanatical organizations can be just as dangerous as the big ones. It's all a matter of will and timing.

Well, what got me online today, was that my wife found a promotional pamphlet in our mailbox today, and we almost died laughing when we started looking through it. It's for a new brand of religious quackery called, get this, Happy Science. It was founded by Ryuho Okawa (大川隆法) a former student of law and finance who got it into his head to make a religion and call himself a god. He claims to be "El Cantare" the reincarnation of Buddha and that he can offer the road to eternal peace. They offer seminars in appreciating your role as a "Civil Servant of the Universe" (宇宙公務員) and even give you a badge stating such that you can wear with pride (embarassment?) for having attended. (And of course shelled out a nice lump of cash to boot.) Their literature has all the standard earmarks of religious cult propaganda ala The Jehovah's Witnesses, The Door Christian Fellowship, or any other average ordinary everyday bilking mill for loonies. If you're lucky enough to live in Japan then you can even take advantage of their "Satory Land" virtual fun park accessible by cell phone. For those who don't speak Japanese "satori" means "enlightenment", so calling the site "Satory Land" is a bit like calling it "Calvary Camp" or "Salvation Fun Park". My personal favorite translation would be "The Happy Buddha's Enlightenment Funland".

What surprised me was that it seems like they're making forays into the international arena as well, with temples in Hawaii, San Francisco, and Brazil. Their site is also available in English and Chinese. Here's the link:

http://www.happy-science.org/en/

I recommend checking it out for a good laugh. Or at least it would be, if it didn't seem to be so successful. It's absolutely amazing to me that enough people are willing to support as obvious a business ploy as this and to the extent that they can have 24 temples in Japan proper and ones internationally as well. This guy's books are supposedly best-sellers. Here is a guy practically claiming to be the reincarnation of god and people are giving him money hand over fist. Of course people have a soft spot for people like the Dhalai Lhama who claim that they're a reincarnation of some ancient whatchamacallit or whatnot. But seriously, how could someone spend money on this and look themselves in the mirror. Guess Ayn Rand was pretty close to the mark when she said that the choice to believe in God is like murdering your mind.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this nonsense is that they actively are recruiting parents to indoctrinate their children with it. If you take a look at the membership page, they explicitly state how they are recruiting "Angel Members", children from 0-6 years old who can be initiated via a special "Infant Entrance Ceremony". I wouldn't say that it's big enough to be too dangerous yet. But it's never good to be complacent about such organizations. The Nazis started out as a fringe organization that polarized an entire nation. And it wasn't so long ago that the entire nation of Japan worshipped their emperor as a divine sun-god for whom they would passionately lay down every last life in a nightmare of self-immolation. (And there are still plenty of those out there. If you don't believe me, look into the controversy over the film, Yasukuni)

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of rational, even-minded, concrete Japanese out there. But there are also a lot of collectivists, fanatics, and spiritualists as well. Especially, of late, the media seems saturated with tales of the paranormal, miracles, and the terrors of modern science. Then again, their economy is set to take the fall again amidst a lumbering and suicidal welfare system and an addiction to social programs. Will reason triumph in Japan? Or will it be quacks like Okawa who end up having the last laugh?

A Decisive Argument Against Religion

This is a video posted by YouTube objectivist Nelapidae. He presents a stunningly clear, precise and cutting argument against faith. Enjoy:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQefreiEQOA

Ayn Rand: Atheist and Advocate of Reason

Here's a nice little collage of clips of interviews where Ayn Rand expresses her views on religion. I wish there were more guests like her on talk shows today.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GS6vxb4H3M

City of the Living

Here's a political art piece depicting the spiritual and concrete consequences of certain philosophical beliefs. I think I've been able to achieve a higher level of subtlety in this one as opposed to my earlier videos. I hope you like it.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WavGf6NYul0

Not Everything that Parades as a Democracy IS a Democracy

I'm taking a little break from the American story right now just to point out that in some parts of the world, fascists have taken to calling their countries democracies when they are really anything but. All one has to do is look at Zimbabwe, where the fascist dictator Mugabe actually has the gall to claim that he is an elected official. How can a thug dare to call himself a president? Easily...his boys have the guns. Countries like this are a constant reminder of the necessity of checks and balances in government and the essential nature of human rights as absolute values. Freedom is not something that can be compromised and still retain any meaning. When you hand over your responsibility to make decisions to a big mob with guns, it may not be so easy to get your right to make them for yourself back again.

And take a hard, close look at the financial chaos in Zimbabwe. The nation is on the brink of collapse. Why? Is it because of greedy multi-national corporations? Or is it really because of a government laden with corruption and barbarity that scorns all the principles of capitalism and yet still cries mournfully for succor from the wealthy nations of the world. Why are the wealthy nations wealthy? Is it because they just happened to be that way? Not so. Many of the countries of Europe and Asia were financially wrecked just a mere 60 years ago, after the second world war came to an end. What made them able to rebound and outpace their collectivist neighbors was that they adopted certain values, values which mimicked those of the United States Constitution. Those values being freedom in society and freedom in business. The extent to which they embraced these values was to the extent to which they became affluent. Where there is no freedom, there can be no affluence, nor progress. If you don't believe me, don't take my word for it. Simply look at the broken and battered nations of Africa, where petty dictators lash their people into inhumane poverty and then beg for the developed nations to grant them succor...only to expand their armies and drive around in Mercedes and Cadillacs.

The next time liberals beg for you to placate the suffering in Africa, take a good hard look and imagine who it is that your money is going to really help. Will it be the starving poor? Or will it be bloated and evil fascists like Mugabe? Think about the architecture of poverty. Who is it that drives away industry, drives away the intelligent, skilled workers from a country? Who is it that murders the poor for obeying, or murders them because they don't? It is the system of oppression which creates poverty. It is freedom which ends that oppression. So before you turn our freedoms over for the sake of the unnamed poor, who you understandably wish to help--After all, to cast a blind eye to suffering would be inhumane--before you do that, first think of what would be the best way to help.

Can we really help the most by trading in our property rights, our right to our own moral consciences and then expect that other countries will in turn value those these even more greatly? Can we seriously expect that? Or should we instead make more of a stand for our own liberties and our own rights, so that we can go out into the world with moral certainty and the firmness of our convictions to serve as a powerful example of what ideals can actually accomplish when translated into reality.

It is always best to lead by example. If we surrender our rights at home, we cannot expect the rest of the world to 'do as I say, and not as I do.'

I'll end with these links to articles and video on the Zimbabwe situation:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25432146/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25470052/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/144274

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143803?from=rss



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFJUOa_ABUg



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRS0n1inpWg

Obama's Hypocrisy: So Much for Secular Politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY0Gttc1a-Y

Yep, Obama is now advocating the expansion and empowerment of faith-based programs. Who really believes that provisions against proselytizing and discrimination are going to be enforceable? How can he seriously justify funding school improvement through churches? Doesn't that mean that secular/atheist children will be denied access to these programs unless they commit the hypocrisy of attending church? How can such a program NOT be called proselytizing if it IS held in a church? So much for his earlier speech about the separation of church and state. I guess he's just as much a hypocrite as McCain.

If anything, this should make it increasingly apparent that neither McCain nor Obama is fit to run this nation. Only Barr is not offering to sell our country to the highest religious bidder. Of course religions have control over large pools of voters. That's exactly what makes them dangerous. And it's exactly the reason why the founding fathers were smart enough not to let the wheedling hypocrisy of religion even get its foot in the door of politics.

Don't passively let them get away with this! Obama has surrended any moral advantage he may have had over McCain. Let's try to save America from becoming the Iran of the future, and all the economic and political ramifications that would entail. We can do it, if we all stand for reason and if we stand together.

Vote for Barr.

Vote Libertarian.

(You'll never see a libertarian campaigning for government money to go to religious programs.)

And here's Barr's forthright explanation of the notorious FISA bill which Obama approved:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUwERBdEDbE

Vote Bob Barr in November. Vote Libertarian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im0Wqj3BSvU

Election 2008: Socialism or Capitalism, Which Shall it Be?

Okay, well, we KNOW that McCain can't be trusted any further than we could throw him, so for me he's not even a contender. Like I said, I admire Obama's stance on religious influence in government and his respect for rational discourse in the political process. Unfortunately, he's a rank socialist, who ignores basic economics in favor of generating a populist appeal. Of course, this has long been a staple of the "democratic" party. It's so accepted that he doesn't even try to sugar-coat it. Here it is:

SOCIALISM IN ACTION



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A-yopgPHbw

So, what else is there to do? Is it really a choice between Socialism and Theocracy? NO. It isn't. Of course, the power-hungry influence peddlers would love for you to think that. They want you to choose between the mixed-values of economically conservative religious extremists and socially liberal communist ideologues. What they want you to ignore is that there is a third option. That option is economic conservatism and social freedom. The price is increased personal responsibility. The price is that we can no longer run crying to Big Daddy Government to save us from our own decisions whether they go awry from ignorance or accident. So what should we do this election? Vote Libertarian. Vote Bob Barr.

He won't hand us over to the Christian zealots. And he won't hand us over to the Collectivists either. Freedom is a principle worth fighting and dying for. Don't allow the Democrats and Republicans to convince you that some are more important than others and that they should be traded like some kind of commodity of influence. Rights are an absolute of human ethics. They cannot be compromised, or else they have no meaning and offer no assurance at all. To preserve our rights is to preserve freedom. And the government cannot force freedom. The bigger government is, the less freedom we have. The less freedom we have, the less able we are to turn our ideas into businesses, to do business with our fellow human beings and in the end, the harder it is to live. If you love freedom and life, vote against both those who would sacrifice us to religion and those who would sacrifice us to society. Vote for freedom. Vote Bob Barr.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWkPMJRDBuo

McCain: Hypocrisy in Action

And if there was any doubt about McCain's trustworthiness or moral integrity, well, this should settle it. Please watch the Before and After videos that follow:

BEFORE



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbNImNX8Xuw

AFTER



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8KZpsp04XM

Lara Logan: A Rare Integrity

I live abroad and so I must admit that I'm probably behind on a few things, but I ran across this video on YouTube and this reporter impressed me with her carriage. I rarely see reporters nowadays who express convictions or who seem to be dedicated to rational discourse in the way Lara Logan does. I'll be following up on her work from now on. Enjoy :)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I420_fPM2E

Election 2008: McCain and Obama on Religion

Well, what should I say? I dislike Obama because he's a socialist. I dislike McCain because he kisses up to the religious right. But after watching these two videos, there's no way I'm voting for McCain. I guess it depends on how the Libertarian candidate presents himself. But McCain is off my list. If the Libertarian doesn't impress me, then I'm voting for Obama.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9izhjnaLa3M



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg8lCLumByw