Interview With A Tube

I heard an interview with Layton on the radio on my way to work. I actually had to pull over I was so incensed. He is using the deaths of Canadians (which really doesn't seem to bother him) to score political points.

Fortunately he represents the NDP and doesn't stand a fiddler's f*** of ever attaining power.

larqs, the problem is they do hold power. A great deal of power. They hope into bed with the Liberals so often it's almost become impossible to distinquish the two parties. When there is a minority government, like there is now, this is especially vexing.

hope = hop

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. - G.K. Chesterton

To tolerate that which is good is pointless. To tolerate that which is evil is not a virtue. We can only tolerate that which is morally neutral. But this just raises the question, how do we know what is morally neutral? Personally I believe we have a Standard that tells us what is right and what is wrong.

I assume, as the first commenter did, that this is a reference to Jack Layton. Yesterday's news featured Jack calling for a scaling back of our military commitment and an end to high level aerial bombing (which tends to hit innocent civilians). Being a socialist, Jack is not one to allow logical inconsistency or reality affect his position. You call in air support when you don't have enough ground troops to do the job.

The Conservatives have a vision for Canada, the Bloc has a purpose, the Liberals love power but we all understand this. But the NDP? The NDP just makes me upset.

The NDP is Canada's Official Enemy PartyTM.

Speaking of Canada's enemies, did anyone note the "Anti-Canada Day" braying and whining over at that major hub of Canadian Moonbattery, rabble.ca?

Jack Layton please just shut the f*&* up for once. This idiot truly makes me sick. Living in Toronto all my life I've had to endure his crap for far too long. I believe it is time to start pressuring the rest of the NATO partners to get involved in a more meaningful way and send troops armed and ready to kill.

Quoting Rand is sure to ruffle Kathy Shaidle's feathers again but as always, she cuts to the heart of any issue with perfect clarity and relevance, even so many years later.

layton + compromise = evil

Ayn Rand is what stupid people read to feel smart.

Anonymous said...

I am totally disgusted with Talaban Jack the Quack Layton.I would love to see him sent directly to the front lines with his tea pot and a typwriter to hammer out a deal so he can show the world how diplomacy is achieved.

He could wear his blue barret, while outfitted with rubber bullets, and a bicycle. For that matter, he should also bring Dawn Black , and Alexa Mc don't know so that they can all show us how it's done.These Quacks think that you can run a perfect war against Tyrants who have no reguard for their our Children lives , much less the life of a slimey politician. He might as well bring toilet paper to hammer out his deal , because the only thing it would be good for is to wipe his ass with it when he's done.

Trying to make a referendum issue on the Afghan war in the upcoming byelection is disgraceful to the democratic process.So now apparently , one or 2 seats should determine how we conduct our foreign policy and effect our charter status with all our NATO allies. Who in Gods world would trust Canada in any future combative conflict ,if we where to bail out of this long standing multilateral international alliance.

I don't hear the heroic military personel , who stand to lose the most complain about our mission. I only see a pile of whining squalling crybaby whusses , who in the comfort and freedom of their armchairs rail on a mission that has brought tremendous gains.

- A newly Democraticly elected Government
- A Constitution
- Women granted freedom to vote , and go to school.
- Trained Military personel
- Trained Policing forces
- Roads and Schools build , and the list goes on

Is everything perfect , absolutely not , I have never seen the perfect war unfold. Bailing out on whats been achieved however is not the solution on many fronts including national security , and on foreign affairs with our Allies.

Timothy Coderre

Oh, I have no problem tolerating the Layton. His daily punishment is to wake up each morning and be himself. I am, however, more than a little irked with the utter fools that have created him, vote by brainless idiotic vote.

In the military, 4 kinds of officers exist:

1. Smart, Energetic - make good staff officers
2. Smart, Lazy - efficient, make good commanders
3. Stupid, Lazy - a place can be found for them
4. Stupid, Energetic - catastrophe follows them, they must be ruthlessly culled. Good choice to lead suicide missions.

I suppose the same rules work for politicians. Any doubt which applies to Jack Layton?

Rand only copies what scriptures says with less words.

Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Revelation 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Well we can see Rands egoism roundly condemns the Hegelian dialectic...and rightfully so because in any discourse with evil/the erroneous where there is synthesis evil and error gain ground.

Excellent quote.

Of course, as a renowned and devout atheist, one wonders where Rand gets any warrant whatsoever to delineate between good and evil, right and wrong.

Discussion for another day, perhaps.

I'm an atheist and I certainly don't need any metaphysical Agent to tell me the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. I have the ability to reason - and that is sufficient. As Aristotle said, there's a difference between knowledge of the fact and knowledge of the reasoned fact (Posterior analytics;ch13).

Actually, the Law of the Excluded Middle is also basic Aristotle - Metaphysics. Bk. IV. Something either IS or it IS NOT.

I am not a big Ayn Rand fan (Hi Kathy) But it is important to recognize a couple of things.

1) Even though I disagree with someone's basic philosophy, this does not mean that I cannot recognize when they articulately and correctly deal with a particular issue (eg: compromise).

2) It is quite right to note that Rand here is only one of many voices both ancient and modern pointing out the basic (and dare I say, rather obvious) flaw of the type of problem solving (most famously, but not exclusively) articulated in Hegel's dialectic.

3) Compromise is not always wrong. It is fine when we are doing things like say, planning a vacation. (He: I wanna go to Los Angeles!! She: Well, I wanna go to New York City!!! They: "Lets compromise and go to Minot!!) Hmmm... Okay, so this is an example of evil, but you get my point.

4) The basic underlying problem as I see it is moral relativism. If one does not accept philosophically the concept of good and evil, then the end result of some compromises will only be to somewhat slow one's descent into hell. Whether or not someone comes to this philosophical understanding as a result of faith in God (while important) is a secondary consideration to this question.

My question for Ayn Rand would be this: "If two thinkers disagree as to whether something is poison or food, who will arbitrate?"

Actually, I've just thought of a solution to this conundrum!! Feed it to Taliban Jack, and employ the powers of observation.

"Ayn Rand is what stupid people read to feel smart."

anon; thanks for the inside tip. ;^)

I've always thought Tom Wolfe's comment about Marshall Macluhan applied to Rand as well: "He hit some very large nails not quite squarely on the head."

And, as Rand predicted, when those who choose not to think wish to dispute with her, they do not argue against her ideas; instead, as "anon" did, they employ the sneer. When you sit back and smugly imply you're superior, without offering any argument or ideas to support your position, trying to argue against you is like punching a cloud.

Or perhaps in this case, a clod.

So, anon, the "You're Stupid" intellectual argument. What's next, "yo momma is ugly?"

Didn't even have to finish the quote to know you were talking about that abominable fool layton.

The complete loser!

Ayn Rand would be amused to see herself quoted in this context.

My guess is that she would roundly criticize the altruistic investment of blood and treasure in the hopelessly idealistic notion of "bringing democracy" to these primitive peoples. She would argue, I think, for a unabashaedly self-interested approach to foreign policy and that our ventures in Iraq and A'stan are the very opposite of that; that we have in fact re-inforced and strengthened the global jihad. She would certainly ridicule the "hearts and minds" infrastructure and development motif.

Reader tip: try the new Objective Standard (subscription, but some pieces free).

In one long piece about the disaster of neoconservatism it was pointed out that the first generation of neo-cons were disillusioned socialists -- collectivists! Neoconism is really just another version of marxism -- but the inevitability of liberal democracy as the endpoint of history rather than stateless communism.

Me? I dunno what to think anymore, tho I suspect Layton is right for the wrong reasons and with the wrong strategy, it goes without saying.

me no dhimmi - I don't think you can make a comparison between communism as the marxist end point of history, and the development of democracy.

The marxist theory is linear, with each socioeconomic political mode supplanting the other. It completely ignores ecology, population size and economic mode.

Democracy isn't an end-point because theories promoting democracy don't see it within a linear progressive movement. Democracy is a particular political mode that operates within an industrial economy. An industrial economy supports populations in the multi-millions. That's the basic 'triad': industrial economy, multimillion population, democracy.

If you have populations in the hundred thousands, you don't necessarily need industrialism - and tribal politics is probably a better political mode.

If you have, as they do in the ME, a population in the multimillions, and have moved your major source of revenue into industrialism, but still retain a political mode of tribalism - that's disastrous. For you and for the world.

That's why democracy is promoted to these nations; they can't remain tribal - for their sake but above all, for our sake.

Hmm, Jack Layton as a rubber tube... and I just thought he was a hose-bag.

Karl said "If two thinkers disagree as to whether something is poison or food, who will arbitrate?"

I believe Rands answer to this would be -the facts of reality-

Reality is always the final arbiter, which is exactly what you've already figured out.

Thanks ET. I thought, however, that Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis argued for the inevitability of liberal democracy. But just look at the EU which is decidedly moving away from democracy. Big time! And note that the fledgling "democracy" in Iraq lead to the insitution of sharia law as it did in A'stan. And of course in Gaza.

Also, lately I've been struck with the notion that while we pay lip service to freedom/democracy in our overseas projects, most of the West itself is running away from liberty, not embracing it. Just look at the trend in the EU which is profoundly anti-democratic, anti-liberty. And let's see how successful Sicko Moore is in pushing "universal" health care in the US!

BTW, in a much earlier conversation about China/capitalism it occurred to be that we were perhaps at semantic loggerheads. That would be called authoritarian capitalism, or state capitalism, crony capitalism. I usually use the term in the von Misean sense as = free market economy, whereas I'm guessing that you use it as roughly = industrialization. Which, agreed, is inevitable with larger populations. But democracy?

Oh, I don't dispute that it would be in our best interest to have democracy everywhere -- that free nations tend to not make war with each other. But I have grave doubts about our methods of attempting to install democracy militarily. For one thing Muslims, sensing their civilizational failure and being unable to own it, are deeply propagandized with a victim narrative, namely that the West is out to destroy Islam. I fear that our efforts FEED this delusion. I fear we will end up with more not fewer theocratic states

But as de Tocqueville taught us: democracy is anathema to liberty anyway.

This may strike you as very strange, but I think a strong feminist movement in the Islamic world is our best hope.

Are you ever wracked by doubt ET?

You guys are funny. In Rand's world, you would not be worth squat. You'd all be slaves.

Stop worshipping a morally vacuous philosophy formulated by a bitter speed freak running from communism in to the glorification of rampant capitalism.

Her philosophy has been very solidly refuted and shown to be a load of hogwash. Anyone at all familiar with the cricisms of egoism in general and objectivism in particular are willfully ignorant if they continue to worship this penny-a-word hack. She stole all of her good ideas and her bad ones manage to be both idiotic and frightening.

Slaves to what or who?

@anon:

Can you source one that neither relies upon a dissemble nor covertly assumes the truth of one or more postulate(s) that it claims to refute?

Look it up yourself. Start with any undergraduate ethics course textbook, and look for criticisms of egoism.

Or, read a previous discussion on plastic.com: http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=05/01/31/17454113;mode=thread

Many people, myself included, have discussed this in the past and nothing has changed my mind that her contributions to ethics in particular, and philosophy in general, were pretty insignificant outside of her cultlike male college student fanbase. Her contributions to literature were even less noteworthy. For real philosophical insight, skip Rand and go directly to Kant, Popper, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Hegel, Heidegger, Hume, Russell, Nietzsche or Rousseau. There are literally dozens of writers and philosophers offering an intellectual depth that is head and shoulders above the contributions of Rand.

Anon: why running from communism is morally reprehensible? Would you prefer to stand your ground and be squashed?

I've never heard Jack sound stupider.
And that's saying a lot.

me no dhimmi -

No, the democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't led to the installation of Sharia law. Gaza, now, is not a democracy.

The EU bureaucracy cannot be defined as a democratic institution.

And de Toqueville did not state that democracy was incompatible with liberty. He's against 'mob majority' (part II, Bk 1). And he's quite aware that a democratic nation, which rests upon the will of the people, can become despotic because people are psychological beings, subject to their emotions - and emotions can be manipulated by a charistmatic leader.

However, I am far more convinced of the value of democracy by Popper's 'The Open Society and Its Enemies'. He is against 'historicism' - which is Fukayama's bent, which sees history as a 'law' of historical development.

No, I don't define capitalism as 'authoritarian or state or crony capitalism', in China or elsewhere. Nor do I define it as industrialism. I define it as a free market economy - with the understanding that the market operates as a complex adaptive network.

I define democracy as the political and economic rule of the middle class - with the middle class understood as a non-inherited status, based around the work of the individual.

I disagree that we are attempting to install democracy militarily. We have removed tribal military dictatorships; the people themselves have moved towards a rule of law, democratic elections and a constitution. Switching from a tribal to a democratic political structure isn't a mechanical action; it takes years of adaptation and it will be successful.

i also disagree with your view that the Islamic world is fighting because it defines itself as a victim of the West (Bernard Lewis' and Said's themes). I've said it so many times that it's useless to repeat - the Islamic fascist explosion is directly a result of a dysfunctional political system. Tribalism in a multimillion size population and industrial economy. Nothing to do with 'victim' of the West. That's the rhetoric; the real reason is the lack of an empowered middle class.

I agree - a strong feminist movement among the Islamics is a vital key to reforming Islam. But the West also has to reject Islamic fundamentalism; the West has to reject multicultural relativism.

Doubt? Doubt is the basis of knowledge. As Abelard said - 'dubitando' - I doubt - and was chased out as a heretic - because he doubted.

anon - I'm just curious - but how can you link Popper and Hegel in the same sentence; as you probably know, Popper loathed Hegel. Rightfully so, in my view.
And Heidegger??? The cult of postmodernism? Rousseau??

I don't know that any on this thread follow or worship Rand. I've never read her so can't comment. The thread, to my understanding, is about the ability to Make Decisions.

@anon:

Thanks for merely shooting your mouth off at 2:23 PM. Why not add the local Liberal party activist to your appeals to authority (a logical fallacy, by the way)?

To Me No Dhimmi - great handle - just figured it out.

I can't comment on any philisophical stuff - I'm not even sure I'm spelling it right - and I don't want to check.

To me, Layton is speaking to his audience - the ones who support him - he's pulling in a decent buck and he may not even believe what he's saying - he does know his audience and he has made a career out of it - as spineless as this may be.

We can rant and rave about Layton but how do we get to his audience and that ideology?

I made the big mistake of reading today's Toronto Star and my buddy, the haroonster - you can't change these guys.

When the US wins in Iraq (or Iraq and the world) and when Nato wins in Afghanistan (for Afghanistan and the world) - somehow Bush will have lied and Big Oil will have been behind it and somehow Libby lied again.

Independent of my appreciation of much of Rand's dialectics, the quote Kate referenced is a classic example of what annoys me about Rand: her utopianism. Consider the first sentence of the quote: "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil".

That is, in my opinion, simply wrong, and the reason it is wrong is because of her rhetorical over-reliance on universal quantifiers and qualifiers. Two? Every? Always? I think not. In my opinion, this is a classic example of Rand trying to sidestep axiological imperatives.

The human determination of net value (things like good and evil) depends on axiological functions that are not binary and are not universal.

I summoned up some courage and decided to try and listen to Rob B try and talk to Taliban Jack Layton. That was a big mistake. Is this guy for real? He stick handles better than gretzki ever could. Not a single question answered and he managed to insult the host as well. Sad thing is that there are sheeple out there to follow him. Does he even know what was happening over there when the Taliban ruled? Damn, pass the Tums please.

If everything is black and white, why was the US funding the evil Taliban before 9/11?

3w.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html

"As Aristotle said, there's a difference between knowledge of the fact and knowledge of the reasoned fact (Posterior analytics;ch13)"

Not so fast, Souvlaki-breath:

"quia" and "propter quid"

He himself disclaims any pretension to being an intellectual, and in fact feels humble and "in awe of many of them" who have been toiling away in obscurity for years. He once went to William Bennett and asked him for a reading list (Bennett set him to reading C. S. Lewis). "I am nothing but a regurgitation of what these original thinkers have labored all their lives to produce," says Rush. But the same could be said of Ronald Reagan or any other leader bright enough to see (as intellectuals often are not) what ideas will move the popular imagination.

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-bowman080103.asp

ET:
I also disagree with your view that the Islamic world is fighting because it defines itself as a victim of the West (Bernard Lewis' and Said's themes).

Well, ET, if you look at the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood by Hassan al Banna in 1928 (?) you will find that exactly this was its central thrust: that the West was corrupting Islam. Also remember how scandalized Qutb was upon visiting Ozzie and Harriet America in the 40s.

I think you're wrong about the Iraq and A'stan constituions. They are sharia compliant I'm pretty sure. Remember that Christian dude from A'stan who was sentenced to death for apostasy only to be reprieved (and exiled) after the application of western pressure. For this Canadian soldiers are dying?

Not to beat a dead horse, but as we agree that capitalism, per von Mises = "free market economy" you can't call China a "free market economy", tho it would be fair to say that they adopted very limited private property rights. But remember Saddam had elections too: did very well in them, garnering 99% of the vote as I recall :). You wouldn't call that democracy, nor as I think of it, should we have called the purple-fingered election in Iraq democracy.

Quibble: I have issues with Bernard Lewis but we shouldn't put him and Said (the pretend "Palestinian") in the same category.

thomas aquinas - the a priori and a posteriori are two different 'realities'. What's your point?

me no dhimmi - the Afghanistan constitution holds up 'civil law' as its basis, but, the law must be complaint with the Islamic religion. This does not equate to Sharia law. Women, for example, are equal.

Don't expect a society that has been tribal for centuries to change in a few years to a modern one; it takes time.

The fact that the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood (Banna, Qutb etc) were appalled by the West doesn't mean that Islamic fascism has the same origin. They were reactions to Egyptian modernization - and I don't think one can ignore the psychological idealism of both. But, such a movement, which is a romantic idealism, can't take hold without other factors. I maintain my point - Islamic fascism is based on the refusal of the ME leaders to enable and empower a robust middle class.

Canadian, British, American, Australian and other soldiers are dying to prevent Islamic fascism from moving west and into our countries.

As for China - it's zooming along the road to a free market economy. I don't think you realize how indifferent the population is to the communist order.

I'd hardly call Saddam Hussein's elections a democracy. Having a controlled election isn't the definitive attribute of a democracy. I disagree; I think the Iraqis DID have a fair and democratic election.

Yes, I do agree; I shouldn't have put Lewis and Said in the same category. My apologies. (I'm presuming you've read Lawrence Wright's book 'The Looming Tower')..

I read an article about Thomas Jefferson going to the ME as ambassador for the newly founded US. He met with an Arab ruler and mentioned that he thought the US could get along with the Arabs just fine. The Arab leader would have agreed except that, as he told Jefferson, he had the religious duty to kill Jefferson and the rest of the Americans whom he equated as Christians. Things haven't changed much have they.

Firstly,

Hmm, Jack Layton as a rubber tube... and I just thought he was a hose-bag. ... That would be his wife Bolivia. He is a cowardly communist pig.

Next,

You dissect Rand and miss her point. It's all about individual freedom and man as the heroic being. The 'collective' has never accomplished anything great or of a great value. The list of individuals who have enhanced our world beyond our wildest dreams is endless.

That is her point. Moral relativism is the gathering of the meek to feel strong. The biggest problem with that is the the IQ usually falls to the lowest common denominator. Therefore nothing worthwhile can be conceived. It is always about the maintenance of the collective.

Two collectives I can name that display this trait are Islam and the NDP party of Canada. And that explains Jack's head.

ET: Yes, I read "The Looming Tower". Perhaps I should re-read it as I don't recall being quite as impressed as I expected to be after rave reviews from people like Steyn.

Dore Gold's "Hatred's Kingdom" about Saudi Arabia had more of an impact for some reason.

I DO realize how indifferent to communism the Chinese population is and -- hope this doesn't sound like stereotyping -- how good the Chinese are with money and what great risk takers they are. I live in Vancouver.

BTW, I agree 100% with your comment elsewhere that morals do not need religion to emerge. I've always felt this (being an atheist like yourself) and especially after finishing Dawkins' "The God Delusion" which very curiously I abandoned, but went back to with relish after reading Ibn Warrag's brilliant "Why I am Not a Muslim" (patterned, I gather, after Bertrand Russel's "Why I am Not a Christian"). Dawkins' explanation for morality: reciprocal altruism (you scrath my back I'll scratch yours).

Oh for sure, China is on the fast track to capitalism! But capitalism needs democracy I feel. It'll be interesting to see if the Communist elites can make that transition.

Duly noted too your frequent references to Popper which I'm ashmaed to say I haven't read at all and must soon.

My point is that one should mention Thomas Aquinas's Commentary on Aristotle and give attribution to the scholastics when discussing the Posterior Analytics:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/demonstration-medieval/

Mention of atheists, Dawkins, Russell, etc calls to mind this famous debate:

Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell:
The Famous 1948 BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God

Father Frederick C. Copleston, SJ (Jesuit Catholic priest) versus Bertrand Russell (agnostic philosopher)

This debate was a Third Programmme broadcast of the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1948. Reprinted in several sources, the following is from Bertrand Russell On God and Religion edited by Al Seckel (Prometheus Books).

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm

Of course Rand's assertion is complete and utter hogwash but this simplistic, black and white view of the world is what is so appealing to the right-wing drum beaters. I am sure the Taliban would heartily endorse this thesis, with their side being the right side.

Babs,

Your world must be a gray maze of sophistry. And you must like not being sure of anything. You perhaps are unable to make an judgment about anything, because it is not nice to be judgemental. It's better to be perpetually confused and unsure about what is right and wrong and to continually try to accept that all thing are equal no matter different they are.

People on the right may or many not agree with Ayn Rand, but most of them do agree that we are born with an innate ability to know right from wrong.

It come by simply employing of logic and common sense. That is what leftists lack .... they find their logic in the carefully crafted gibberish that comes from a committee hell bend on not making any look or feel bad. Therefore never actually deciding anything real and of value. Kant is your model for that kind of polluted thinking.

Ayn Rand's philosophies are based in logic and the trust that what one observes actually exists. Then one can logically decide what value each thing has by judging it according to it's attributes.

Judging is discriminatory. Discrimination is what leads to good decisions and it is how we know right from wrong.

You haven't read much of Rand have you?