Archive for the 'Current Events' Category

Consequences at Ground Zero

Written by Christopher Roussel. Published on August 26, 2010 ago in Current Events, Politics and Religion. 1 Comment

This entry is part 3 of 3 in the series Defending Secularisation

While the spectacle that has received the buzzword title ‘Ground Zero mosque’ continues to rage, there seem to be a few points of fact that have been overlooked. It may be known that the address for the site (currently Park51 but previously Cordoba House) is 45-51 Park Ave. What is less known here is that 45 Park Ave is already a mosque — and has been since July 2009. It isn’t a new site ex nihilo but an addition or expansion of an already existing community. Further, the new site is two-fold: first is a community centre created by refurbishing the Burlington Coat Factory already at the site (which has been in disuse since 9/11); second is a separate prayer centre (i.e. ‘mosque’) within the community centre complex. The relationship between the prayer centre and community centre is analogous to the relationship between a department store and a shopping mall: independent while overlapping.

The second issue I wish to look at is the response to those who oppose the site. It has been said that it is being opposed because the site is taken as an offense. My primary concern is that this offense is based on an illusion. The common arguments on the offense is that it is because, ultimately, it is believed that the Muslim community behind Park51 is no different from al Qaida. However, there is little non-circumstantial evidence to this argument. In many cases, it would be a good idea to change location in order to show that the Park51 community is peaceful/non-threatening/sensitive. But the problem with that response isn’t that it’s wrong: changing locations will make the people opposing it feel justified/vindicated for having their perceptions based on illusions. At some point, someone needs to stand up for honesty (and dare I say truth, in a generalised sense). Feeding a bad, false impression is never a good solution, and it seems that no matter what the Park51 group does now, that bad impression will be fed: it’ll either be ‘see, they backed down because we were on to their schemes’ or ‘see, they are so bad that they do not even respect our opinions’.

It’s a lose-lose situation, and the biggest loser isn’t them nor the relatives and victims of 9/11, but the American people who will have let the media (left or right wing, doesn’t matter) think for them, decide for them, and act for them. It is the feeding of false perceptions that is the worst consequence, as it leads us further into our sollipstic relativism and disavowal of the public sphere. The false perceptions being touted as prima facie evidence is a radical form of individualism. It is a condition in which we’re sinking away into ourselves where the only things that matter are what we think and believe for ourselves, divorced from any kind of public sphere that mediates between the many individuals to create a kind of community. In other words, it doesn’t matter what is real and/or true but what “I” (here being used to mean anyone) think is real or true. “I” make my own reality and substitute it for the one in which we used to live. Such relativism, whether it comes from the left or the right, needs to be addressed. This case is all the more why a truly secularised society is necessary, as it creates a neutral public sphere in which false perceptions regarding religions can be righted.

Is the Left FINALLY Seeing the Light On Obama?

Written by Colin. Published on June 17, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. 2 Comments

John Stewart has let loose on Obama for being just as much of an authoritarian statist as President Bush (US link; UK link). If the left finally willing to recognise that Obama is a statist and that statism has no party (or rather, has adherents in both parties)?

In the philosophical tradition (the French and UK), the left has been libertarian. In the recent pragmatic (US and German) tradition, it has been on the right. It’s time for both conservatives and liberals to unite on common ground to reduce the police-state, wars, corporatism and government spending.

The answer takes courage. It means that Republicans need to not support statist republicans – either don’t vote, or vote Constitution or Libertarian Party. It means that Democrats need to not support statist Democrats – either don’t vote, or vote Green or Libertarian Party. Either way: STOP VOTING FOR STATISTS.

Republicans and conservatives failed miserably last time. George Bush almost immediately proved that he was an authoritarian to the core – yet he received virtually unwavering support. His philosophy was adopted by many conservatives who blindly supported the measure for which they now criticise Obama. When Ron Paul spoke up on this, they ridiculed him (many now support him, even more support his son Rand).

But if this is a partisan change in the right, then it is doomed to fail. The end of a partisan shift, is merely to elect party members (re: Republicans) into office. But a philosophical shift will see beyond partisan allegiance and will seek philosophical progress in whichever party it may be found. The left now has its opportunity to awaken in the wake of Obama’s complete lies on so many critical issues. Hopefully anti-authoritarians on the right will embrace them and ally with them – not engage in partisan bickering.

Rant: Pete Carroll and Tim Floyd As Political Padigm

Written by Colin. Published on June 10, 2010 ago in Current Events. 14 Comments

USC’s basketball team has received heavy sanctions for it’s abuses. Now, it appears that the football team will have wins vacated, a reduction of scholarships and a two year post-season ban. These are severe and devastating consequences for breaking the rules that uphold the NCAA.

Yet the two main culprits have gotten off scot-free. Coaches Pete Carroll and Tim Floyd left their programs just in time to make it out with jobs elsewhere. Carroll especially could be seen as able to gauge which way the wind was blowing in order to time his exit at the best possible moment.

And now to what might seem an unrelated matter – the national debt.

The American voter has been electing people for years to manage our government and our money. These people have been spending this money on their own power, projection and legacies. And they have left a mammoth debt which threatens to cripple this country in the coming decades.

But much like USC’s coaches – these politicians will bear no criminal or social responsibility for their recklessness. No, when the debt collectors come, they will be taking YOUR assets, YOUR house, YOUR stuff and YOU will be forced to work to pay for THEIR spending. The crooks in Washington will be long gone by the time the collectors come calling. Do not be deluded: YOU will end up holding the bill.

Americans, in my experience, are completely and utterly ignorant of what national bankruptcy looks like. They continue to demand an expansion of social services and welfare from the left. The right continues to demand expanded wars, military spending and costly unenforceable drug laws. Many Americans have no clue, absolutely no clue what kind of slavery they are setting up for themselves.

When the debt collectors do come and the politicians are sipping iced tea in Costa Rica, perhaps they think that the rich will pay for these debts? Since when have the poor ever been able to out muscle the rich? No, the rich will be stuck with some of it, but they are the next most likely to escape with minimal damage. The bulk of the debt, probably a disproportionate amount, will be paid by middle and working class Americans – those least able to get away. Based on the debt to income ratio with these classes, the prospects are nothing short of perpetual serfdom.

The average American already works five and a half months just to pay his taxes. And these taxes are heavily subsidised by government debt. If Americans had to pay the costs of government, plus the principle on debt, plus the interest payments – then they may be working ten or eleven months just to pay for the past decades of wanton waste.

Wake up Americans. Stop demanding government to take care of you from cradle to grave. Stop demanding that the American military be large enough to police the world. Stop demanding the government bail you or your neighbours out when you buy crummy products, make stupid decisions, buy stuff you can’t afford, get your feelings hurt or otherwise screw up. Take some responsibility for yourselves. Because the politicians are not going to help you – they are looking out for number one and are going to ditch this sinking ship at the last possible minute, and you are going to be left drowning.

The Israel, Gaza, Flotilla, Blockade Mess: Let’s Just Chill Out For A Second!

Written by Colin. Published on June 2, 2010 ago in Current Events. 26 Comments

I have been attempting to follow some of this mess that is brewing in the Middle East with Israel and Gaza, which has recently brought about the deaths of several people, and now threatens to explode into a pottential larger conflict with Turkey now making threats and posturing. At first it seemed like an easy judgement – don’t kill ten people, Israel should be condemned. But the more I look into this, the more complicated this whole thing becomes, and I am finding it hard to make a judgement.

First of all, if you believe that the modern, secular nation state of Israel is somehow (and the logical leap here seems rather large to me) the recipient of divine protection and infallibility – then this article is not going to be for you. I see the modern nation state which calls itself Israel as just another nation state (although it happens to share the name of God’s Chosen people which he used to bring about the Messiah of the whole human race).

Recent video released shows that Israeli solders upon landing on the flotilla in question were summarily beaten with chairs, metal pipes and other weapons. In that sense, it could be said that actually, the protesters started this and that this justifies the Israeli Defences Force (IDF) taking out live weapons and defending themselves.

But then we go back even farther. This was a private ship in international waters, heading to Gaza on a humanitarian mission with food and supplies to help people there. The IDF then, would be the aggressors who first trespassed on the floatilla, and the protesters were using legitimate force to defend their property from an aggressive military action.

But wait – the flotilla was attempting to break through a blockade which was legally set up by Israel and has been in place for years now. The blockade specified that ships trying to break the blockade would be boarded and possibly seized. So then, the protesters, again, appear to be the aggressors.

However, is this blockade a legitimate action in the first place? Israel is blockading Gaza primarily because Hamas was elected into power there and also because there have been rocket attacks into Israel from Gaza. A blockade for the first reason is definitely wrong _ Israel may not like the election results, but it should respect them. At the same time, if Gaza actually is a place where there are attacks against Israel are being actively launched and instigated, then it seems legitimate to defend themselves by a blockade. This shifts blame back to the protesters – maybe…

The point of all of this is not to pick sides, but to show how convoluted and complicated this situation is. We are tempted, because of our pre-disposed views about Israel, to immediately condemn the other side.

The situation is escalating for this exact reason – the entrenchment has now become so firm, and the exact causes of the conflict are becoming so convoluted, that we are rapidly approaching the place where people give up trying to talk about things and just start attacking each other. And I am not just talking Israel and some neighbours and occupied regions. I am talking about Turkey, which would immediately invoke NATO and possibly Europe. Which would involve the US. Which would probably involve Asia and Russia. This thing can get ugly really fast. It is at this critical stage that we in the blogosphere need to clear our heads, gather the information and avoid making hasty generalisations and calling for people’s heads.

Seven Year Old’s Lemonade Stand Shut Down by Government – No Permit

Written by Colin. Published on May 29, 2010 ago in Current Events. Closed

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZZLAL5p0xw[/youtube]

Watch the video for the story. A seven year old, taught by her family the value of hard work and creativity, was mercilessly shut down by her local government for a) not having a permit b) selling at a location which might be “dangerous” (a local intersection).

Obviously that itself may be revealing of the stark insanity of the current level of government intrusion that the public is allowing. But note anotehr thing.

This young girl is also already learning about how modern state capitalism works. At the end of the video, the city council, moved by her request, is going to try and work out a special arrangement for her to sell her lemonade. This is the real lesson in this: let government make it impossible for people to freely set up business, and by so doing, create a culture where business needs to lobby government for special favours and privileges.

At the end, the anchor says “she’s going to be a great businesswoman.” Without question: she’s already learned the valuable lesson of going to the government for special favours.

What Rand Paul Might Have Said: Four Other Media Appearances To Consider

Written by Colin. Published on May 21, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. Closed

I’ve already made my position clear that I agree fully with Rand Paul’s intentions about the Civil Rights Act. I will echo some of the sentiments of others that he could have been clearer, but at the same time, the Rachel Maddow show was a kangaroo court. Despite Rand Paul’s attempts to explain his position, he obviously knew that he was being set up and wriggled, finagled and squirmed in his explanation.

Here are a few other ways this issue has been dealt with.

1. Barry Goldwater

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacJtYPHKiE[/youtube]

Goldwater didn’t win any friends by this. He was unabashedly critical of the Civil Rights Act and made it clear as to why. He also called out LBJ’s flip-flopping on this, but to no avail. It remains a black mark on his legacy in the eyes of many to this day.

2. Ron Paul on Meet the Press circa 2008 (forward to 4:44)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4&feature=related[/youtube]

Ron Paul is also unapologetic and unabashedly purposeful in his remarks. But he is wise. He first finds a place of agreement with where discrimination is wrong, and then shows the principle behind the law. “It has nothing to do with race relations.” And then he lays the smack down and Russert quickly moves on.

3. John Stossel

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrsNGSCC6aI[/youtube]

Stossel isn’t running for office, and therefore is the most upfront. He says that he would go even farther than Rand Paul and seek repeal of the law. But Stossel, again, brings the issue away from race right away to show the principle. The anchor then tries to make the emotional point against Stossel, which he authoritatively dismisses with the axiomatic case of how people who refuse customers which others serve will eventually go out of business. This goes over the anchor’s head, and probably would be over the head of most Americans.

4. Ron Paul circa yesterday

Here Paul again finds a point of agreement, showing MLK as a person who favoured the repeal of laws and for civil disobedience. He then proves his knowledge of integration history and shows how the government is no friend of civil rights. In this context, Paul reveals in plain language the greater principles at stake here. Lastly, he makes the axiomatic point, just like Stossel and then criticises the witch hunt going on about the issue.

What all of this shows is that Rand’s big mistake was trying to speak out of both sides of his mouth. He should have taken the libertarian position, dealt with the flack and then moved on. Instead, his shiftiness on the show and subsequent backtracking has made him look disingenuous (which is not new).

Rand Paul may have principles somewhere in there, but he behaves like a politicians and that makes him incredibly different than his father.

This is the Kind of Silliness We’re Up Against: Rand Paul and Rachel Maddow

Written by Colin. Published on May 20, 2010 ago in Current Events, Philosophy and Politics. 51 Comments

Rand Paul, fresh off an overwhelming victory over an establishment republican is already getting attacked by the left. What are they attacking him on?

His disagreement with 10% of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Yes. Nothing about any relevant modern legislation. Nothing about actual policy to be implemented. Rather, they are trying to pin him as a racist because he doesn’t agree that private businesses should have their free speech and property rights abridged.

Watch Rachel Maddow harangue him for a quarter of an hour as he calmly tries to explain why property rights are more important than positive rights to not be discriminated against.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3O2rBz9gwo[/youtube]

Part 2

Paul even goes as far to point out exactly what Maddow is doing: trying to use a deep philosophical discussion about the nature of racism, property rights and free-speech to score a political point which media hacks can put on repeat for the rest of the general election.

Philosophical libertarians, conservatives and even philosophical liberals need to be alert and aware about these kinds of tactics. They are the largest barrier to anyone other than a shifty, people pleasing shiester getting into political office.

Rand Paul, and others like him, are just too smart for hacks like Maddow who cannot and will not consider that something with such a noble name like “the civil rights act” may contain provisions that actually do more damage and cause more problems then they solve. Is there any question that it is right to fight racism? Of course it is. But to fight racism by infringing more fundamental, basic rights needs a deep and tempered philosophical discussion.

Optimism For The New Coalition In Britain

Written by Colin. Published on May 12, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. 4 Comments

I am tremendously excited and optimistic about what has occurred in the UK general election. In full disclosure, I voted for the Liberal Democrats. I did this because I felt that they had the most to offer me as a libertarian, despite sharp disagreements on some economic and environmental policies. Though I had very broad and significant disagreements with the Conservatives, I liked a couple of ideas: a) adopting a Swedish “free schools” model to allow charter schools b) cutting government spending now (as opposed to later).

The conservatives did not win an overall majority, but with the Liberal Democrats, they have formed a coalition government which, in my view, is providing much of the best of both worlds. For a libertarian in such an un-liberal place as Britain, this is pretty decent. We’ll get:

reduced income tax for lower earners
referendum on a new, more fair voting system
decent sized cuts in government spending
free schools
no new power to the EU and a referendum on any such proposals
scrapping the national ID card
protection of civil liberties

This is more than decent. However, there were some casualties:

England’s nuclear weapons will not be scrapped
Inheritance tax will not be reduced
there will now be a cap on total non-EU immigration

Nevertheless, we are basically getting the fiscal conservatism from the Conservatives and the social liberalism from the Liberal Democrats. As government is cut, there is going to be some immediate pain, but in the long term, I believe the country will be better off for this.

Moreover, the Alternative Voting system is going to be put to a referendum. This system is a step in the right direction for providing more power to smaller parties. It’s a long-term measure that has only come about because of this hung parliament.

Many in England (especially Conservatives) lamented the hung parliament, but this is by far the best thing which could have came out of the election.

BJ Lawson is a Healthcare Genius

Written by Colin. Published on May 4, 2010 ago in Current Events. 3 Comments

While the Democrats are finalising the pillage of the US heathcare industry, and the republicans are putting up a token (but completely useless) argument for a “free-market” in healthcare, real doctors like BJ Lawson are putting practices into place which are dramatically reducing costs and opening up high quality care to all. Lawson is doing this by abandoning the government protected third party insurance model and moving to a cash-based system.

He was recently part of a forum with other doctors who are doing the exact same thing. They are making plenty of money, patients are getting incredible care and the costs are a fraction of insurance and government programs (about 90% cheaper!). I encourage anyone who has any interest in the healthcare debate at all to watch this forum in it’s entirety:

[vimeo width="500" height="300"]10884801[/vimeo]

Lawson is also running for congress. I endorsed him in 2008 and happily do so again in 2010.

CATO Gives Some Great Tea Party Advice

Written by Colin. Published on April 29, 2010 ago in Current Events. 3 Comments

CATO and I don’t always get along – I think they compromise far too much. But this is a great video, reminding the Tea Party of five important points:

Republicans are not always your friend
Some Tea Partiers like big government
Democrats are not always your enemy
Smaller government demands restraint abroad
Leave social issues to the states

The video is here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4AdiydIDsM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]