Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism

I finished “Atlas Shrugged” a couple weeks ago and was fairly impressed with it. I have mixed feelings on Objectivism. On the one hand, some of its ideas I find quite attractive, and many of the complaints against it strike me as being sour grapes by people who have decided a priori that they didn’t like Rand because of her political, economic and/or atheistic views.

At the same time, I would not call myself an Objectivist. Their dismissal of altruism, while not meritless, goes overboard I believe, and their idolatry of Saint Rand is just too cultish for me. “Randroids” also have an annoying belief that because they use rationality, then everything they do, say, decide, and believe is not only correct, but is the only correct way. Objectivists I’ve met don’t seem too keen on the concept that two perfectly rational people can still disagree.

One of the things I do find appealing about Objectivism is also one of its most misunderstood aspects. Its appeal to the concept of the Nietzschean “superman” is something I find very empowering. Despite Rand’s frequent division of people into either “supermen” or oblivious “sheeple”, I think her concept of the superman was meant as an inspiration rather than as a class division. While the Nazis used the concept as a divider to proclaim their own superiority, the superman concept in Rand’s literature seems more like a challenge to the reader to do more, think more, be more than they are now. To be in control of your own destiny. And not be bogged down by artificial, meaningless limits placed upon us by society, culture, tradition, religion, or other institutions which impress conformity upon its members.

King George II

(Alternate link to Advocates coverage of this story is here.)

What do you call the ruler of a country who considers himself to be above the law, able to ignore it whenever it inconveniences him? Conceited, arrogant, and dangerous are some terms. Dictator would be another. If that ruler also thinks his rule comes from divine mandate, then perhaps king might be the most accurate.

The articles linked to above and in the title detail a dangerous new expansion of presidential powers, to the point where Bush has decided that legislative and judicial checks and balances do not apply to him. I've long held that all presidents are more or less roughly equal in political corruptness and incompetence. Bush, however, seems to be setting himself quite apart from previous presidents who, despite their politicking and demagoguery, nevertheless seemed to understand the importance of having a balance of power between the 3 branches of gov't.

The gist of the above articles, is that Bush has been attaching hundreds (750+) of "signing statements" to bills he signs, essentially saying that he retains the right (what right?) to ignore any such law as he sees fit. Gee, can we do that too? Signing a bill into law, and then attaching a signing statement to it, is exactly analogous to a little kid who says "I promise" while keeping his fingers crossed behind his back.

This in itself is a pretty serious thing for a president to do, but the exact types of bills Bush has been doing this with should be a real cause for alarm. Some bills that Bush feels he needn't comply with include:

• military rules & regulations, such as how military prisons are operated (secret & otherwise)
  
• protections for nuclear safety whistleblowers
• requirements that he inform Congress on immigration service problems
• requirements that he inform Congress on how he's putting the Patriot Act to use
• requirements that he inform Congress on funding secret military operations
  
• Congressional oversight of presidential actions
• a ban on military combat engagement in Colombia
• bans against the use of torture
• bans against the use of information collected illegally in direct violation of the 4th Amendment

I've remarked previously that many Republicans seem to regard the Constitution as a nuisance, something nice to hold over other nations' heads but otherwise just an impediment to "tough on crime" policies. Bush seems to hold this view quite literally.

The next presidential election is going to be a mess. The Repubs will pick a candidate who is as close to Bush's policies as possible. The Dems, in turn, will not feel obligated to choose a truly qualified candidate either; their slogan will be, "Even a garden slug would make a better president than Bush." Which is probably just what they'll pick as a candidate.

I fear that the next president, Dem or Repub, instead of reversing all the damage that Bush is doing, will decide that they feel just fine with the level of expanded presidential power that Bush has left them. That, I think, is one of the worst parts of all this. The effects of bad presidents don't go away when they leave office; the policy changes, expansions of power, new bills & programs, & new practices have a bad habit of sticking around many years or decades into the future. As a president, Bush will most certainly leave quite a legacy; it's just too bad that the results of that legacy may prove disastrous for this country.

Does working six jobs qualify me as a workaholic?

Yes, I'm actually holding six jobs right now--sort of. I work for a local ISP from about 11am to 5pm each day. Been doing that for a couple months now.

In the mornings, and if needed right after I get off at 5pm from that ISP job, I also work for a second local ISP. Pretty much the same work--troubleshoots, installs, & handling customers. The two companies were in merger talks at one time, I don't know if that's still on or not.

Job #3 I work from 6-10pm. I score state exams for 5th- & 6th-grade math. Although occasionally entertaining, this job is mostly mind-numbing. It's also given me a real appreciation for just how badly our public schools are utterly failing to do their job--either that, or lead pipes are back in style.

The fourth job is a recent weekend gig. A friend of mine runs an ISP up in northwestern Indiana, and I've been helping him do wireless site surveys, installs, and network infrastructure maintenance & repairs. Some of that work I've been doing for him pro bono, in part because we've been friends since about 5th grade (about 25 years), and partly because it's a real educational opportunity for me.

Then there's some editorial work I'm doing for a local publishing house. It's freelance work, and I can do it in my spare time. My wife actually signed me up for that job, she was working there for some time and now also freelances for them.

My sixth job is with a consulting/temp agency. They get me the occasional one-shot gig doing PC/server deployments, site inventories, POS rollouts, and such. They're one of the many I.T.-oriented temp agencies you can find out there. My work with them isn't very regular, but it gives me a few extra bucks every now and then, plus some more resume-padding.

I'll tell ya, I'm hoping I don't get burned out. The good thing about being as busy as I am, though, is that you don't have time to get burned out. :-) Also, the variety of work I do keeps things from getting too monotonous. There are downsides, of course. I miss sleeping in, I'd like more time to spend with my wife, I'm still not making as much money as I would be with a single good career, and my Tivo's getting piled up with a backlog of programs. But, my current work status certainly isn't going to be permanent. I have some possibilities on the horizon for full-time work at either yet another local ISP (which in turn is also looking to partner with one of the ISP's I currently work for), my friend's ISP up in NW IN, or possibly as a network tech at the local university. It will probably be next month at least before I know anything definite about any of those, though.

What a busy life I'm leading! I'm not feeling any self-pity though; I don't like that emotion in others, and I like it even less in myself. Self-pity is a very disempowering emotion...but that's a subject for a future blog entry. It's almost 5pm as I write this now, and I've got 4 more hours of work plus a two-hour drive ahead of me!

FCC attacks 1st Amendment again, gets laughed out of court

Finally, a judge with some sense! In yet another grab for power by the FCC at the expense of our freedoms, the FCC this time is trying to force colleges, at huge expense, to make Internet communications more "friendly" to wiretaps. Problem is, there's nothing authorizing them to do so. U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards ridiculed them for this, saying, "Your argument makes no sense. When you go back to the office, have a big chuckle. I'm not missing this. This is ridiculous. Counsel!"

The FCC, among many other federal agencies, is in desperate need of many more such bitch-slappings. It's good to see there are still friends of freedom in the judiciary.

morning energy drink recipe

This is the first--and possibly only--recipe you'll see on my blog. It's something I came up with on my own. I make this on most mornings to down my vitamins with. Not as nutritious as a fruit smoothie, but it's fast to make, cheap, and you don't need to use (or clean) a blender.

1-Minute, No-Mess Orange-Strawberry Morning Energy Drink

1. A tall glass of milk, filled to a bit less than an inch from the top
2. A heaping spoonful of orange-flavored, smooth-texture Metamucil (or store brand) fiber
3. A good squirt (about 2 tbsp.) of Strawberry Nesquik syrup

Use a spoon to measure the orange-flavored fiber into the glass of milk, and stir it in. Then add some strawberry syrup drink mix and stir. That's it!

OK, so both the orange and strawberry flavors are artificial. Big deal. The point of this recipe is that you don't have to mess with cutting up fruit, blending it in a blender, then washing out the blender. If that's your thing, fine. This is a quick substitute that will give you a quick dose of sugar for now plus fiber and protein for energy later. For those who don't usually eat breakfast, this drink will also postpone that pre-lunch hunger.

I highly recommend the fiber be of the smooth-texture variety, as that stirs in much easier. Similarly, I don't recommend using Strawberry Quik powder, since with the fiber powder it will not mix very well and may settle out in chunks quickly. (Quik-ly?) This recipe if followed should still be drunk soon after you make it, as any fiber powder has a tendency to settle out regardless. That's why I use the smooth-texture fiber and liquid syrup.

Bottoms up, and enjoy!

"America, Right or Wrong"

This book review is one of the best descriptors I've read of the "American attitude" or, as the reviewed book calls it, the "American Creed." This might be described as "a civil nationalism that promotes values like democracy, liberty, law, egalitarianism, and individualism." While generally perceived by Americans and non-Americans alike as a good thing (and as an "American thing"), these can also have their negative consequences, particularly in the area of foreign relations, when pride in these attributes morphs into a messianic or superiority complex which in turn leads to imperialism and/or nationalistic arrogance. But read the review and you'll see what I mean. Time permitting (har har) I may even try to read the book itself.

As something of an anti-nationalist, I don't particularly care for the phrase "America, right or wrong." The "...or wrong" part is just, well, wrong. Those who agree with this phrase are essentially putting blind faith in the American ideal ahead of recognizing any faults this country has and doing something about them. There is nothing wrong with having faith in the American ideal, just in having blind or unconditional faith. One should not turn a blind eye to America's faults, but should instead strive to correct them. "Germany, right or wrong" was a popular sentiment during the first half of the 20th century among Germans, and we can see how well that turned out.

Neocons nowadays similarly seem to live by the motto, "Bush, right or wrong." They are apologists for Bush, no matter what he does, even when his actions go against what more traditional, "old-style" conservatives believe in. (Bush is certainly no friend of minimal gov't or laissez-faire economics.) They feel a loyalty to him and his administration that seems to transcend (or transgress) rationality, consistency, or principles. They excuse and justify his actions rather than protesting when his actions go badly or go against core conservative beliefs. (Which is not to imply that the Democratic party is any better at sticking to their principles.)

No country, belief, or idea is ever made better by ignoring or covering up its faults. Indeed, one of the great strengths of free speech and democracy are that we can speak out against wrongs, and hopefully take action to correct them. The Soviet Union imploded because wrongs in its economy and in its actions and behaviors were excused and covered up until their cumulative effects caused the collapse of the country. China, on the other hand is experiencing rapid economic growth now that they've embraced capitalism and foreign investment (in practice, even if the Old Guard keeps spouting its communist slogans).

The bottom line is that wrongs should be and need to be corrected. To excuse, attempt to justify, or cover them up is not only a perpetuation of wrongness, but ultimately self-destructive.