Blogcritics Author: David M. Brown

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

What Robert Ringer Said Does Not Seem Correct in All Respects

David M. Brown — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:46:38 EDT

I wonder if one of my favorite writers, Robert Ringer, fully understands the nature of the burden of proof, the difference between seeing and detecting, and how and when we are justified to infer causes that we cannot directly observe.In "Now You See It, Now You Don't," an essay distributed to his email list that will probably be posted at some point at his web site, Ringer writes:"Atheists argue that because you can't see God, that's proof (or at least strong circumstantial evidence) that He doesn't exist. I can certainly see where it's reasonable to draw an inference that God does not exist based on the fact that no one has ever seem Him. However, in his book The Universe in a Single Atom, the Dalai Lama makes an equally reasonable case for the opposite point of view."He suggests that just because you can't see something, that is not proof, in and by itself, that it does not exist. In other words, invisible phenomena such as mental telepathy strongly support the idea that there's a whole lot more to life than the material world we are able to see."The Hubble Telescope project would appear to give solid backing to the Dalai Lama's position. Hubble scientists long ago discovered that not only is all matter moving away from all other matter at unfathomable speeds, but those speeds are actually accelerating. Thus, the scientific evidence has forced them to conclude that there is an invisible force in the universe that is greater than the gravitational pull of all matter in the universe combined."In fact, there are many things that we know exist, through firsthand experience, even though we cannot see them. We know that wind exists, but we can't see it. We know that sound waves exist, but we can't see them. We know that air exists, but we can't see it (though we can see foreign particles in the air, which is an entirely different matter)."Questions:1. Mental telepathy? What's that? Does it have something to do with beaming your thoughts into the brain of another without any discernable method of communication like speech or facial twitches, nor any means of intuiting the thoughts of another like long familiarity or shared past? If there were in fact no actual means of transport, how in fact would the thoughts travel between the two minds? What is the actual evidence for telepathy, and will scam-buster James Randi be allowed to test the claim under properly controlled conditions?I haven't read Mr. Lama's book. But it is strange that Robert Ringer cites "invisible phenomena such as mental telepathy" as if the reality of said phenomena were self-evident, so obvious as to immediately illuminate rather than becloud his musings. I can agree that we often infer the existence of thoughts and feelings within the minds of others even though they are physically invisible to us. We are conscious of our own consciousness, and we can observe the sundry manifestations of the consciousness of others. Such manifestations include speech, writing, thumbs-up signs, sex, television watching, etc. But none of this inferential process has anything to do with "mental telepathy."2. What is the relationship between "sight" and "the five senses"? Could it be that the sense of sight is one of a panoply of five senses with which most human beings are equipped? Could it be that, even though we're not able to see it, we can perceive the wind by means of our other five senses? For example, by hearing it and feeling it? Might the wind be detectable by instruments and by the movement of the items that the wind affects? Do we not possess sensory means of observing the fluttering of a gauge or the flattening of a shack? One suspects that Ringer would immediately assent to these points. But by sidestepping relevant considerations he is drawing a parallel to allegedly reasonable warrants for mystical belief that he is not entitled to draw.3. What is the relationship between perception of a phenomenon and perception of evidence of a phenomenon? Perhaps, that both require perception? There is no need to delve into specialized scientific debates to understand our ability to infer the existence of things that we cannot perceive directly. We don't, for example, need to witness a murder to know that one occurred; we do need to see the corpse. Nor need we witness our own birth, or the births of others, to know that such births must have occurred. We do need to see something of the consequences of such births.4. Can an atheist make a firmer claim about the state of the evidence for the existence of a God than simply that we cannot see a God, "just as" we cannot see the wind? Yes. He can say that there is no credible evidence whatever for the notion of a God--none at all, none of any kind. And he can further note that he is not logically obliged to "prove" that an unsubstantiated fantasy does not exist in order to be fully justified in abstaining from believing in that fantasy.One can only offer evidence for positive claims about reality. One can't offer any evidence for the nonexistence of things that don't exist. Proof is about pointing to things in reality that support one's conclusion. Things that exist either can be pointed at directly, or leave traces that can be pointed at. Things that don't exist not only can't be detected by the senses, but also leave no detectable traces. Nonexistent things exert no impact on reality. They don't exist. They're not there. There are no footprints of nonexistent things that are characteristic of nonexistent things and that can be cited as proof of their nonexistence. There is no indentation of a certain depth that could lead a sober investigator to cry, "Aha! We are dealing with a nonexistent entity here! Only things that don't exist leave prints exactly .042 centimeters deep!"Things that don't exist leave no footprints, therefore the insistence that one point to such footprints as proof of the nonexistence is unreasonable, a kind of epistemological shell game. All the atheist need do to justify his lack of belief is show that none of the alleged "evidence" of a God actually holds water. The point might be easier to grasp if one considers fantasies one does not already unreasoningly believe in. Few advocates of the God hypothesis hold out for the hypothesis about the invisible naked fairy princesses with a limp breakdancing on Mars. Yet the amount of evidentiary support for each proposition is identical, i.e., zero.What they consider to be evidenceOf course, for many theists, the wind itself constitutes "evidence" of a Supreme Being, just as all phenomena constitute evidence of one. "How could we even have all this stuff surrounding us--and so well-designed too--unless there were a God? If the universe hadn't been created by such a being (an all-powerful being with good design instincts), the universe couldn't exist."One need only inquire who then created and designed God to expose the futility of this alleged proof. Certainly if evolutionary forces aren't enough to explain the intricacies of the birds and the bees, the God who confected them would be surpassing wondrous enough in constitution to require a maker to explain his own existence as well. And that back-creator would be more stupefying still in his creative abilities, requiring some sort of further causal explanation. That way lies infinite regress. In any case, any uber-creative factor would already have had to be in existence itself in order to do anything, and hence could not have created the whole of existence from scratch. So what is gained by fabricating an undetectable yet magically omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent Factor X or supernatural overlord? Why not simply accept the universe as a given, which must have always existed in some form or another, some aspects of which we can understand, some of which we cannot, at least not yet?All the "evidence" provided for the existence of God is of just this character, some easily ripped tissue of fallacy. What it comes down to in the end is mere faith, mere belief, despite the lack of any evidence for the belief. It comes down to a feeling. Well, people believe an awful lot of things, many of them mutually contradictory, based on their strong feelings. What you need to justify substantive claims is evidence. Evidence and reasoning. This requirement does not injure but rather greatly assists the attainment of moral values and personal meaning. The evidence of the senses is the sine qua non, what gets the ball rolling.

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine and runs the blog for Laissez Faire Books, where he recently posted about libertarian views on immigation.

Meet Mr. Insensitive ... Me

David M. Brown — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:52:18 EST

"How far do we go toward accommodating religious sensitivities in a pluralistic society?" - Eric Olsen, cartoon-controversy roundupThis question underscores a huge problem with respect to how the Mohammed-caricature controversy is often being cast. What I say below should not be taken as a response to anything Eric has written, but as a response to certain rationales and characterizations I see popping up again and again in this debate, and not just at blogcritics.org.What religious sensitivities are we talking about? Is it really a huge dilemma whether to accommodate the thuggishness of thugs, so long as they scrupulously tap the most politically-correct or religiously-correct mantras? Apparently the answer is yes, because in the West we seem to keep suffering this same "dilemma" over and over. I don't quite know what a "pluralistic" society is. Is that a society with more than ten people? I want a society in which all persons who disagree with others, even vehemently, retain all their rights; and in which any person who willfully violates the rights of others to go about their peaceful business unmolested is subject to the sanctions of law. That kind of rights-respecting society is in my interest and in the interest of every other reasonable person. It would naturally engender a heterogeneity of culture and viewpoint. Pluralism thus defined is a natural effect and feature of a free society, but does not constitute the core of what makes a free society possible. In a free society, there is no pluralism about whether you can hit somebody over the head and grab his wallet. It's banned outright. Respect. Common courtesy. Civility. Sure. Let's have them. Since when, though, do civilized persons require being threatened with death in order to exercise the virtue of civility? But being civil does not mean never uttering a disagreeable word, nor being snivelingly "sensitive" about every surly twitch and mutter of the avowed enemies of freedom and civilization. (And when is somebody going to explain how threatening to decapitate those who disagree with you exemplifies the virtues of either civility of "sensitivity"?)True, most Muslims, it should not be necessary to stress, are not vicious killers; only a tiny minority. Also true, not all Muslims are foes of freedom of speech; what exactly the ratio of free-speech-supporting to free-speech-opposing Muslims might be I don't know. But reasonable persons of all creeds have every reason to be civil toward others in the ordinary course of the day (and even if something in their creed might be interpreted, or misinterpreted, as a blanket warrant for infidel-killing). And such persons have no reason to repress or threaten or kill others who deal with them peaceably in turn, no matter how offensive the articulated views of those others may be in fact or in imagination.Another person's desire to gag or murder me for saying something he dislikes represents the one kind of act that cannot be accommodated in a free society, if it is to remain free. Killers may be very sensitive people. Let's grant that. But I just don't care how sensitive a killer is to criticism about his desire to smash my skull in. Nor should I. I mean, in that case, screw it. Let's offend. Especially if you're a cop who happens to be passing by at the time. Don't be so sensitive, officer. No really, shoot the guy now, cry about it later.The MoHo-cartoon debate obliges us to choose between surrender and resistance. Do we in the West who value our lives and liberty simply hand them over to the Islamo-fascist thug-droids on a silver platter, taking pains all the while to babble furiously about how horrible the cartoons are and how "Gee, I can understand why you want to behead cartoonists and such"? Or, do we actively oppose these killers and their collaborators and the flimsy blood-soaked rationalizations with which they attempt to veil the countenance of their evil...and actively defend our own life-serving values?At least a couple bloggers in this part of cyber-town are upset because the cartoons were reprinted by anybody, whether in support of the Danes, freedom of speech, or the truth about the connection between Islamo-fascist ideas and the ensuing Islamo-fascist murders. Never mind the Marxo-idiotic jibber-jabber about globalist-capitalist conspiracies that some of these scribblers are spouting. What it comes down to is that surrender, in their view, is the only option, if we're to be, you know, sensitive. I'm not that sensitive. Or rather, I am sensitive. Which is to say that I'm very offended, for example, by the scum-monkey newspaper editors who have suddenly discovered vast reservoirs of hitherto untapped "sensitivity." I'm equally offended by the scum-monkey publisher of a New York paper, the New York Press, who prohibited his editors from publishing the caricatures. I'm not offended by the editors who then resigned in protest. Good for them.If the allegedly journalistically-objective newspapers declining to publish the images that the squabble is all about had announced that their refusal has to do with fear of blowback, such a course would have been at least semi-honorable. It would have been honest, at least. It would have given their readers an important clue about the nature of what's happening."How far do we go toward accommodating religious sensitivities in a pluralistic society?" We go as far as we go toward accommodating any sensitivity of any kind. We protect everyone's rights, equally, to the extent humanly possible. No society protects individual rights perfectly. But each must try, lest it devolve into the kind of anti-society in which the strongest habitually stomp everybody else, with only a few stray and rapidly incarcerated or killed courageous ones ever daring to protest.Maybe some manifestations of pluralism do accommodate thugs and tyrants. Free men and women, however, do not accommodate thugs and tyrants. Not if they plan to remain free. No, I have no great interest in delicately persuading an Islamo-thug to stop coming at me with his sword. Sure, maybe I could sensitively ask the guy to be a little more sensitive toward me in light of how I would prefer to continue living and everything. Perhaps he would then pause and reflect and say, "You know, you're right, here I am demanding sensitivity, and by gum ... I'm not being all that sensitive ... oy vey, Allah!" But the chances are low.See, the "sensitivity" game can be played into infinity. The only place where folks never rub each other the wrong way is a graveyard. Well, we will all get there soon enough. No need to rush.David M. Brown is the publisher of TheWebzine.com, which has published articles by Robert Ringer, Petrarch, Bill Roggio, Robert Bidinotto, Eric Dixon, Robert Hessen, Michael Masterson, Erika Holzer, Andy Hertzfeld, Claire Wolfe, Barbara Branden, Montaigne, Bill Quick, and others.

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine and runs the blog for Laissez Faire Books, where he recently posted about libertarian views on immigation.

Satire: The Last Episode of 24

David M. Brown — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 03:16:35 EST

[The President is in a meeting with his Top Advisors in the Situation Room.]PRES: Gentlemen, I must tell you that we have just received a credible threat from--[Outer Office Secretary Mabel enters as CAMERA FOLLOWS HER IN. All heads turn, a bit peevishly, for she is interrupting an urgent meeting between the President and his Top Advisors in the Situation Room. SLOW PAN and CLOSEUPS of each Top Advisor as they ponder this interruption. Their concern, heartache and conflict are written on their faces.]MABEL: I'm sorry, Mr. President. It's Billy Bob at CTU. He says it's urgent.[She hands the President a cell phone. ZOOM IN on cell phone.]PRES [repressing annoyance]: Couldn't you have just buzzed me on the intercom and put him through to my land line?MABEL: I'm sorry sir, but I felt like handing you a cell phone.[CLOSEUP of cell phone as she hands it to him. 4-WAY SPLIT SCREEN of President's cell phone, Secretary of State's cell phone, Secretary of Defense's cell phone (still on belt clip), and a Security Guard's cell phone.[ZOOM IN on President's cell phone, crowding out other panels of the SPLIT SCREEN.[CUT TO SLIGHTLY QUIVERING PAN of Mabel exiting the Situation Room. Her personal tragedy and need to reorganize her desk are written on her face.]PRES: Yes, Billy Bob. What is it? Have you confirmed that Bin Laden has the power to thin the rainforest, blow up all our major cities, and make people wait even longer at the airport?[QUICK CUT after QUICK CUT as the others gasp; the country wouldn't be able to endure any more hassles at the airport.[2-WAY SPLIT SCREEN. We see Pres on left screen and Billy Bob on right screen. SCREENS SPLIT AGAIN and we see Pres on upper left, Billy Bob in upper right, Pres tapping on his desk with a pencil in lower left, and Somebody Doing Pushups in lower right. Last screen SPLITS AGAIN and we see the Eyebrow, distraught and pulsating, of the Guy Doing Pushups.[CUT TO cougar mauling Push-Up Guy. A baby cries in the background.[CUT TO a FLEETING CLOSE-UP of Billy Bob's Left Nostril.[CUT TO Pres, waiting.[CUT TO Eyebrow, severed and bleeding.[CUT TO Billy Bob Nostril, hesitant.[CUT TO PRES, waiting.[CUT TO 2-WAY SPLIT SCREEN. We see Pres on left screen and Billy Bob on right screen. The Pres screen BECOMES THE SHAPE OF A TRIANGLE and the Billy Bob screen BECOMES THE SHAPE OF A CIRCLE.]BILLY BOB: Mr. President. It's worse than that. Seven minutes and 35 seconds ago, Jack Bauer was killed by heavy traffic while crossing the street. Apparently he was looking at his stopwatch, which he has a habit of doing on the hour every hour, when he should have been looking where he was going.... Bottom line, Mr. President: we've lost Jack Bauer, the man who has--PRES: Hold on... I'm putting you on speaker, Billy Bob.[PRES presses speaker button on speaker phone on desk after fiddling with controls for a bit. He plugs a wire into the cell phone and connects it to the speaker. He presses speaker phone button again. Seems to be working.]PRES: Can you repeat what you just said?BILLY BOB: Mr. President. It's worse than that. Eight minutes and 4 seconds ago, Jack Bauer was killed by heavy traffic while crossing the street. Apparently he was looking at his watch, which he has a habit of doing on the hour every hour, when he should have been looking where he was going. Bottom line, Mr. President: we've lost Jack Bauer, the man who has headed up every anti-terrorist mission in the field for the past three going on four years.[We hear show's standard looks-like-Bauer-is-really-dead-this-time theme music.[Hush falls over the Situation Room.]PRES: Thank you for calling. [Buzzes intercom.] Mabel?[CUT TO Mabel at her desk in the outer office.]MABEL [leaning toward intercom]: Yes, Mr. President?PRES: Come in here, please.[Mabel enters Situation Room. Pres hands her the cell phone.]PRES: Get Bin Laden on the line, Mabel. We're going to have to surrender.[Mabel leaves to dial the number in the outer office. She sits down at her desk and efficiently presses a speed-dial button with her pencil.[Laden's phone rings....]LADEN VOICE MESSAGE: You have reached the voicemail of Osama bin Laden. At the sound of the tone, please leave a--3...2...11...2...3[As Mabel re-enters Situation Room, another phone rings. We see 12-WAY SPLIT SCREEN of all cell phones in the room.]PRES: Is that for me? Whose cell is that?[Mabel picks up second call on another cell phone she happens to be carrying.]MABEL: Mr. President, I have Billy Bob on one cell and Mr. Laden on another cell. Whom do you wish to speak with first?[CLOSEUP of Mabel. CUT TO CLOSEUP of the President.]PRES: Well, who's that on the Nokia? Billy Bob?MABEL: Yes sir. How do you want to handle this?PRES [biting his lower lip]: I'll take that one first I guess.... Yes, what is it, Billy Bob...? Oh, thank God! Everybody, Bauer is alive![We hear show's standard Bauer-is-alive-after-all theme music. Everybody chatters and yelps gleefully. High-fives all around. 12-WAY SPLIT SCREEN of high-fives, followed by 12-WAY SPLIT SCREEN of people patting their cell phones to make sure they're secure.]PRES: Okay, okay, settle down now, settle down now, people. I'm still on the call.... Uh, so why the misinformation, Billy Bob?BILLY BOB [in other panel of SPLIT SCREEN]: Just some bad intel, Mr. President. But if you were thinking of surrendering to bin Laden, I'd wait until Jack has a chance to follow through on his latest lead. Apparently his mother knows something relevant to the investigation, and he's almost through beating the shit out of her even as we speak. We'll know more in a few minutes.[Mabel is gesturing furiously at the other cell phone.]PRES [loud and authoritative]: Uh, okay then, Billy Bob. Keep up the good work, and please keep me posted. I want reports at 18-second intervals. I'll do a fake-surrender with Bin Laden and stall him, until Jack can track him down and beat the shit out of him too.[Mabel continues to gesture furiously at the other cell phone.]BILLY BOB: Mr. President, we're pretty busy at this end as well, but I will be sure to keep you posted.PRES: Er, okay, then. Give me that.[CUT TO Mabel pulling at her hair and stalking out of the Situation Room as President fiddles with wire to connect this cell phone to the speaker after detaching the other cell phone from it.]PRES: Hello, Mr. Bin Laden? Uh, yes, we are prepared to meet your terms. But you need to give me an hour or two to prepare my people for the conversion to an Islamo-Fascist Dictatorship. Can you live with that? And then I'm sure we can arrange a smooth transfer of power...uh...hello? Mr. Bin Laden?VOICE OF BIN LADEN: Yes. I hear you. Yes. I heard you before. I heard everything. The line was open, you unwashed infidel. Reception is bad out here so I told your assistant not to put me on hold. It is all very enlightening, your deceptive Western dog ways. Well, obviously there is no deal. I do not accept your surrender. Ptui, I spit on your weak stratagem. And there is no way that Bauer can reach us in time. By the time I hang up this phone, Mr. Western Dog President, everything will be in motion. By morning, the security procedures at your airports will be more cumbersome and obtuse than ever. Praise Allah! Okbah, Hockbah, Doobah Labbah Ding Dong! [Click.]PRES: Wait, I--did we get a trace?[SPLIT SCREEN of Secretary of Defense eyeing Secretary of State, and Secretary of State eyeing Secretary of Defense.]SECRETARY OF DEFENSE [in somber and gravelly tones]: Uh, did you want us to trace the call, Mr. President...?PRES: We're doomed.[300-MILLION-WAY SPLIT SCREEN of all Americans and resident aliens around the country. Their concerns, life stories and conflicts are written on their faces.[CUT TO Jack Bauer drop-kicking his 70-year-old Mom.]MOM: Oof!BAUER: WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME! Just tell me, Mom, where's that guy you bumped into at the supermarket who knows the guy who knows the guy who overheard something about the current location of bin Laden??? NOW!!!!MOM: Urp!3...2...1David M. Brown is the publisher of TheWebzine.com, and recently posted at Laissez Faire Books blog about the Yahoos at Yahoo, the latest re jailed pot-dissident Steve Kubby, and the real reason the Lost Liberty Hotel ballot measure didn't make it to the ballot in Weare, NH. Edited: [GH]

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine and runs the blog for Laissez Faire Books, where he recently posted about libertarian views on immigation.

Christianity and Cartoons Versus Islam and Cartoons

David M. Brown — Mon, 6 Feb 2006 02:18:27 EST

There has been a small debate recently over at Daily Pundit over whether Christianity has some of the same seeds that can spring into irrational violence as Islam. I agree with those who say that it does but that Christianity as currently practiced is obviously not the stark threat to civilized life as is currently-practiced Islam. Of course, individual practitioners of either religion can be all over the map with respect to how well they live their lives and interact with others. I've been to Indonesia twice, pre-9/11 and post-9/11, and have met many Muslims who are friendly and good. Surely there are many anti-terrorist Muslims, even if they're not always as vocal in their anti-terrorism as we would prefer. It's just that for whatever historical and cultural reasons, it's much less likely these days, notwithstanding the occasional lunatic gunning down doctors at abortion clinics, to see Christian preachers advocating decapitation of cartoonists who draw cartoons offensive to Christian sentiments. But this difference in contemporary temperament doesn't mean that the actual doctrines of Christianity are or always have been thoroughly sane and mellow.It's been pointed out that what constitutes a particular religion tends to shift as interpretations shift. Yet the original and still-consulted scripture and all its specific passages are still there, saying, if we're lucky, "It's a good thing you don't pay that much attention to me these days, or, if you do, that you go way out of your way to pretend I mean something different from what I do mean."For example, according to the Bible, isn't God himself a murderer and mass-murderer? Cf., for evidence, Genesis:6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.... [There follow details of exactly what dimensions the ark must be.]6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.In another place, God instructs Abraham to make a sacrifice of his only son, Isaac. It turns out to be one of those just-a-test things, but God clearly states that Abraham was doing the right thing to obey him and would have been morally right to actually kill his own son as a sacrifice, on God's say-so alone. 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.I wonder what tossing a baseball around with the old man is like after you have learned that he was willing to murder you on some maniacal deity's say-so.Religions often teach that if the gods command it, it's okay ethically: morality springs from deistic say-so alone, no matter how ugly and vicious the commandment may be. This is a precept which, although it has of course been used to inculcate some norms that do make practical sense independently, actually wipes out ethics. It means that whoever is strongest trumps...that the ability to impose one's will alone actually determines what is "ethical," by fiat. Gods, being gods and having special powers that humans don't, are the strongest; so you're pious, and good, if you fear the gods and submit. The omnipotent-type gods hold all the cards, and clearly feel no need of logical defense of their actions. At least Plato, for all his faults, knew enough to ask whether piety and justice are the same thing.So yes, I'd say there is something vicious in Christianity that is something like the something-vicious in the religion based on it. Fortunately, the worst aspects of Christianity have been largely tempered and de-fanged by civilizing ideas, institutions and cultural habits in a way that the worst aspects of Islam apparently have not been.David M. Brown is the publisher of TheWebzine.com, a general-interest Internet magazine. He also runs the blog for the Laissez Faire Books site, where he recently talked about the refusal of Piggly Wiggly customers to be fingerprinted. Edited: [GH]

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine and runs the blog for Laissez Faire Books, where he recently posted about libertarian views on immigation.

Don't Let the Islamo-Fascists Kill the Right to Free Speech

David M. Brown — Fri, 3 Feb 2006 20:19:43 EST

Some peacenik types, practiced in the art of highly selective observation and quotation, bleat that all that America or the West need do to defuse the threat of Islamic terrorism is forbear from ever getting involved militarily in conflicts overseas. It's not that the Islamo-fascists hate our culture or freedom, nor that they wish and strive for a global caliphate. After all, don't the Bin Ladens of the world even announce explicitly on their videotapes that, hey, all you have to do is throw in the towel in your war against us and all will be well? And we all know what credible truth-tellers the mass-murdering terrorists are.Sure, the only problem is our foreign policy, not our culture and freedoms; but only, it seems, so long as our culture and freedoms don't permit publication of the wrong cartoons. Per the most recent update of the situation published by The New York Times, thousands of Palestinians are joining other Muslims around the world in demonstrations against "European nations" that allow the printing of cartoons waxing satiric about Islam or Mohammed. Some have called for beheadings of the cartoonists and others responsible.While the huge rally here in Gaza was peaceful -- and many leaders warned against violence -- some of the oratory was not."We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible," one preacher at the al-Omari mosque here told worshippers during Friday prayers, according to wire service reports. Other demonstrators called for severing the hands of the cartoonists who drew the pictures, unflattering to Muhammad and to Islam.The cartoons have outraged Muslims as being provocative and anti-Muslim, while many Europeans have defended their publication under the right to free speech. One cartoon depicts Muhammad, the founder of Islam, with a turban in the shape of a bomb.Since being published in Denmark in September, the cartoons have been reprinted in Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Switzerland, as well as in Jordan. Editors at the papers in France and Jordan were fired.So, it's all about foreign policy? Tell it to the recipients of the latest Islamo-fascist death threats. Guess all we and the Europeans need to do is actually two things: 1) never respond to any national security threats that transpire beyond our borders, even if the day-after-tomorrow consequence of the threat is something that may well transpire within our borders; and 2) outlaw cartooning (and also outlaw, as we've learned, documentaries critical of Islamo-fascism, the making of which can also get you killed; might as well add Salmon Rushdie novels to the list while we're at it).When a non-psychotic Westerner is offended by a cultural effluence, he organizes a boycott, holds forth at the water fountain, or, these days, blogs. Chopping off the heads of those you disagree with is not generally entertained as a reasonable option. What does this disparity of response tell us about cultural differences? Sure, the vast majority of Muslims would never actually sneak up on and behead anybody, and let's assume that most in fact do not agree with beheading as a way of answering criticisms. But why then aren't the killers who do advocate such courses of action booed off the stages at the mass rallies and prayer services? Why aren't there immediate and even more massive rallies by Muslims against such calls for beheadings than are being held against...cartooning? Why is editorial cartooning, or criticism of Islam generally, whether in bad taste or not, thus implicitly regarded as more offensive than murder, and by so many Muslims? Or is it that so many Muslims are too afraid of the terrorists in their midst to dare protest the thuggery?Whatever the full explanation may be, anyone who reads these stories and continues to claim that murderous Islamo-fascist antipathy toward the West and America is all or mostly about foreign policy, and would evaporate if only the governments of the West never acted militarily overseas, is not being altogether honest.David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine, and runs the blog for the Laissez Faire Books web site, where he has been posting about the Steve Kubby case, Google perfidy, and other burning issues of the day.

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine and runs the blog for Laissez Faire Books, where he recently posted about libertarian views on immigation.

Don't Let the State Kill Steve Kubby

David M. Brown — Wed, 1 Feb 2006 16:30:56 EST

I was hoping to write a lengthy original article for Blogcritics on the Steve Kubby situation, which is an emergency happening right now. Kubby is a political activist who was recently deported from Canada so he could serve a sentence in a California county on a nonsensical drug charge (he's in favor of using marijuana to help save your own life, and helped get the medicinal-marijuana initiative passed in California). I also wanted to talk about a previous case of an activist killed by the state for advocating drug legalization, Peter McWilliams. Google it. It's instructive. Since making-a-living type things and other distractions are making it tough to do the report I want to do for Blogcritics on this, and since the matter is urgent, I'm going to cheat and just paste together a couple of my recent posts at the Laissez Faire Books Blog. The bottom line is this: you can help save this guy's life by contacting the folks holding Kubby and explaining that by preventing him from getting the proper treatment, they are making it harder for him to survive. That we all know that their conduct will have been a major contributing factor if he does die while under their "care." Here are the two blogs, in the order posted. (Don't miss my addendum at the end about the latest incident in this Kafka-esque parade, about the paper they forced him to sign.)* * * posted 1/29/06 Steve Kubby: back in the U.S....and doomed?Steve Kubby, a libertarian activist who fled to Canada to avoid being harassed for using marijuana in the U.S., has been deported. He needs the marijuana to treat malignant pheochromocytoma, a normally fatal condition...and is unlikely to get that marijuana in an American jail. The hammeroftruth site reports:Kubby has twice been held behind bars for a few days, and he nearly died both times. This time, it is expected that he would spend 90 days in jail. According to his family, this will almost certainly prove fatal to Kubby.The site quotes from a press release sent by Kubby's wife, Michele:Canadian Federal Justice, Yvon Pinard, ruled today [January 20] that Immigration Canada may now proceed with its attempt to send Steve Kubby, cancer patient and medical marijuana refugee, to die in an American jail. Immigration Canada is expected to issue a new removal date, presumably sometime next week.Angry and distraught, Michelle Kubby said, "Justice Pinard simply ignored the statements by the Placer County Prosecutor that Steve would be jailed, if he is forced to return to the US. (Kubby was prosecuted by Placer County in 1999 after a six month surveillance of the Kubbys' home based solely on an anonymous letter.)"He also completely misrepresented California laws regarding medical marijuana. No jail in the US allows the use of medical marijuana. My husband's life hangs in the balance, but Justice Pinard ignored blatant lying by Immigration officials."We attempted to file an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals, but were denied. If Canadian judges ignore both the facts and the law, we can only count on the Canadian people to contact their politicians. Unfortunately, Canada is in the middle of an election campaign in which even the plight of Canadians who need medical cannabis does not seem to be an issue."Kubby is now in the U.S., in the custody of the Placer County Sheriffs Department. Michele Kubby is posting updates about his situation at the kubby.com site:Unfortunately I missed Steve's call today because of an interview. No problem, Steve called our Auburn contacts and described the circumstances of his day.It seems that Placer has moved him from the infirmary to solitary confinement. He has a cell all to himself and he was freezing. Again they are ignoring his pleas for a blanket and have left him to shiver and chatter in a cold cell. Remember, this is in the foothills of the Western Sierra. It is very cold and the cold is a damp cold. I'm afraid he will be looking at getting pneumonia soon if he is not warmed up.This is exactly the cruel and inhumane treatment I described to Canadian officials, that would happen if Steve were returned to the US. I also told them repeatedly that Steve would be immediately arrested upon his arrival at SFO, which is exactly what happened. Of course the Canadian government officials that judged our case responded to my pleas for protection from this grim future by turning a blind eye, ignoring evidence, and refusing to do the right thing when they could. They cannot see what they have done, for to do so would have to mean that they were wrong and have made a terrible life threatening mistake.This, of course, is exactly the position that Placer is in. To admit that they are wrong about the life saving properties of cannabis is impossible. Better to test this theory out and see if it can really save a life.Steve always liked to give us good news. So, the good news about today is that the Marinol is helping to control the rectal bleeding he was experiencing as well as the blood pressure. Of course Marinol does not contain the catacholimes present in the whole plant, and these have been shown by Dr. Guzman of Spain to have the properties of inhibiting a protein necessary for blood vessel development, which results in the cancer tissue being denied nutrients as well as teaching cancer cells to die.With Marinol, Steve is only partly protected. Because Marinol uses only the THC active portion of the cannabis plant, his tumors are now free to grow again. This type of tumor is particularly apt to grow into the spinal cord, brain and organs.Now, the bad news is that Placer has not taken his blood pressure since he arrived yesterday. Steve must be on a constant monitor in order to gauge the severity of his medical condition. At any time, his blood pressure can skyrocket. Being freezing cold stresses the body which releases more chemicals which worsens the danger.This is a game of chicken and Steve doesn't have much of a chance. He has been stripped of all rights, including his right to the special diet he needs.In the January 29, 2006 issue of The Libertarian Enterprise, over at ncc-1776.org, Thomas Knapp suggests in a letter to the editor that opponents of the drug war/destruction of Steve Kubby help bring attention to his case by making his story more accessible in the search engines, and offers tips on how to do that.* * * posted 01/30/06:More on how you can help Steve Kubby stay aliveKubby's wife, Michele, has posted an update about his situation at the kubby.com site:A contact in Placer [County] has just called to give me an update on Steve. I'm so glad someone heard from him. His main concern at this point is that Placer is not documenting the effects of his disease on his body or taking his illness seriously. His blood pressure is at 166/108. Placer is not testing for blood in his urine, either. Placer has also turned down Steve's request for Tylenol pain killer.Steve wanted to express his gratitude for the calls. They are making a difference. One Sergeant, named Sanders has made sure that Steve is warm and has a blanket and pillow now, because of your concern. One thing my friend did say, Steve sounds amped and angry. This is to be expected because of the adrenaline in his body.I hope this is resolved on Tuesday. Thanks for being there. At shrubbloggers.com, Eric Dixon yesterday pointed to a page by Brad Spangler giving contact info for the Placer County District Attorney, so that people can ask him to have mercy on Kubby and not let him die. Spangler is convinced the motive for going after Kubby is political retribution for Kubby's involvement in California's medicinal marijuana initiative. (As Eric points out, the author Peter McWilliams was also a very public exponent of liberalizing the drug laws. McWilliams was jailed and stopped from using pot to treat his own illness, which eventually proved fatal.)Spangler writes:Steve Kubby will surely die unless something extraordinary happens to encourage some measure of mercy to be extended to him.Steve's family and supporters have asked those who can't make it to San Francisco to show their support for him personally to contact the Placer County California District Attorney and express disapproval of inhumane treatment for Steve and plead for his life.Contact: Bradford R. Fenocchio Placer County District Attorney (530) 889-7000 (530) 889-7129 fax bfenocch@placer.ca.govSpangler's own letter, provided as a sample, seems a bit more impolitic than is wise in such a situation. However, if all the persons responsible for incarcerating Kubby are warned again and again that Kubby might die without the appropriate care, including the medicinal marijuana that staved off his deterioration prior to being deported, and to please not let him die, perhaps they might think twice about simply letting him die. They would not then be able to say, later, that they simply had no idea what might happen. There would be too much documentation of the fact that they did have an idea.A page at the web site for Placer County, placer.ca.gov/da/da.htm, describes District Attorney Fenocchio as one who "makes reasonable and ethical decisions when initiating prosecution."* * *The hits just keep on coming. After I posted the above blogs at the Laissez Faire Books blog, a transcript of a phone conversation with Steve Kubby was posted at blogs.salon.com, in which Kubby reported that his keepers forced him to sign a paper declaring that if he dies while in their custody, it's his fault, not theirs. Remember, these are the folks who by dragging Kubby back to the U.S. over the bogus drug charge put his life in unnecessary jeopardy to begin with.OK, so let me continue with my report. Here's the spooky part, Pat. The medical director has refused any further medical care for me, and has forced me to sign a paper that if I die, it's my fault for not taking conventional b-p medication. When I protested that the statement did not include the statement that I was under doctors' orders from my doctors not to take these medications, I was confronted by a deputy, who told me, I want to get the quote right, told me, "Sign the paper, and sign it as is." And, you know, just got in my face and made it clear that I was under physical duress to do it, that I was forced to sign that paper.At least the fact that he signed unwillingly is now out there, public. Here is the plea most recently posted by Kubby's wife, Michele, at the kubby.com site, which has lots of information about what has happened to Mr. Kubby:ATTENTION! KEEP CALLING THE JAIL MEDICAL CENTER @ 530-745-8660 AND REQUESTING THAT STEVE SEE AN OUTSIDE DOCTOR. CONTINUE TO CALL THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT THE MOTION INTO COURT FOR EDIBLES TO BE GIVEN TO STEVE. THANKS EVERYONE!I expect to post further updates about this bizarre and sadistic case at the Laissez Faire Books blog in the days ahead.Let's help save this guy's life.David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine, and runs the blog for the Laissez Faire Books web site, where he has been posting about the Kubby case.

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine and runs the blog for Laissez Faire Books, where he recently posted about libertarian views on immigation.

Original Action Scenes: Point-Blank Possible

David M. Brown — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:06:17 EST

Some cinematic writers and directors and writer-directors have the notion that all that is required to produce a dramatic conflict is to show a physical conflict. This might suffice sometimes, but, even then, the devotees of this expedient often do not know how to present the clash in a way other than we have already seen many times before. Or maybe they just don't care enough to make the effort to present it otherwise.The scene-concoctors are, of course, as familiar with the imitatively wrought patterns of movement as we are, which is why they find them so readily at hand, so easy to draw upon when something is needed to fill the time and move the plot "forward."So, if there's a car chase, there is something very familiar about the car chase. Yes, we have seen these vehicles turn corners like this before.If there are fisticuffs, there is something about the punches and counter-punches that we can say is not entirely foreign to memory.If there is an axe sweeping toward the head of our prone protagonist, it is a good bet he will jerk aside just before the blade would have severed that head.How wonderful to see the sudden surge of strength and mastery with which an utterly exhausted one, his arm and hand akimbo, but whom we do not want to die, somehow wins an arm wrestling match with a villain who is in the best possible physical position to plunge a knife into the heart of our beleaguered compatriot yet somehow cannot make it through that last inch or so. Still, were it not for the frayed electrical cord and the vat of water that the good guy can see but that the bad guy cannot, all might have been lost.The bad news for TV show people who complain about how their short production schedules must usually preclude doing much better in most scenes than the most weakly imagined cinema is that there are shows like 24 and Lost now. (The people who do 24 have to answer questions like this: "But isn't the unpredictability of the show becoming all-too-predictable?" Yeah, it so boring when you know ahead of time, already, that you are not going to be bored to death. Next....)For the sake of argument, let's say you don't have the resources and talent of the crews doing 24 and Lost. Still, how hard is it, really, to look at a scene you've plotted out, to look at the staging you have in mind, to look at your stack of 3x5 index cards of cookie-cutter directions you are about to give to your overly obliging actors and which you culled from the Standard-Issue Director's Kit of 3x5 Index Cards of Cookie-Cutter Directions for Overly Obliging Actors, cards bearing the same old stale directorial wisdom on them that all the other directors are giving to their actors...and to realize that what you are about to do is a "creative" crime for which you should be flayed alive? How hard is it to take a step back and say, "You know, if we do this the way it's been done umpteen trillion times before, it will look exactly the way it's looked umpteen trillion times before."Okay, so maybe you're not an artistic genius; maybe you're not de Palma; granted. But do something that comes out of your own brain and aspirations instead of out of the index cards. Give it a shot, man.Maybe it won't work. Maybe you'll blunder. But then I as a viewer would at least be able to say, "What a botch! What he was trying here doesn't work at all! The tone is wrong, the pacing gangs aft agley, and the motivations of Suzy and Sal are improbable in the extreme! But you know...at least he tried. He was after something and he tried honestly to grasp the nettle of it. Got to give him credit for that. It's crud, but it's noble crud."Where this is taking me is a scene in the 1967 movie Point Blank starring Lee Marvin and directed by John Boorman, a film I was able to see recently thanks to Netflix. (Thanks, Netflix.) Angie Dickinson stars as Chris, a woman who helps the Lee Marvin character, Walker, get his revenge against a fellow crook who double-crossed him during a heist and left him for dead. While not perfect, the movie has very interesting bits in it, and should be preferred to the unwatchable 1999 remake with Mel Gibson, Payback. (Douglas Pratt offers some interesting details about the Point Blank DVD at the moviecitynews.com site.)The scene occurs when Walker takes Chris to the home of a man he intends to shake down for $93,000, a man he may end up killing. Chris had not fully realized their purpose in coming to the house, and when she finds out, is very upset. For a couple minutes the only thing that happens is Chris hitting Walker, striking him in a way that is utterly awkward, spastic, flimsy and distraught. Walker just stands there impassively, taking it. Finally she collapses. The woman has stopped, so Walker gets another drink or does whatever he was about to do before she started flinging her fists at him. It all just happens.You watch this scene and no matter how you may assess the rest of the movie, you can't help but say to yourself, "I've never seen this before. I know that people can get upset. I know that someone might strike another person over and over again without that other person flinching. It makes sense that Chris would be so incompetent yet sincere in her blows, given her emotions and everything else. It makes sense that Walker would be impassive and just let her wind down, that he doesn't feel threatened by her, and also that if he feels any sympathy for her on some level, he doesn't have the time or inclination to express it right now. It's plausible. It's not canned-plot-turn-plausible, it doesn't follow the index cards, it's not plausible in virtue of being numbingly familiar. But I've seen aspects of this one-sided altercation many times in real life. That, in addition to its consistency with what we know of the characters, is why the scene persuades me. I can accept these emotions, this weakness versus strength, this utter loss of control versus rigid self-containment. Yet this particular scene, the way it was done just now, the whole gestalt of it? It's out of the blue as far as I'm concerned. Something new. Fresh. Riveting. And it's not just physical action. It also tells a story about the characters. It moves the story along actually, not just physically, not just through space or time; it's a development. Okay, I'd better stop talking to myself now."And it doesn't matter if you now instruct me that in "So-And-So Movie" directed by Such-and-Such Director, produced two years before Boorman did Point Blank, there was a similar scene and that Boorman probably saw that scene before he set up his own such scene in Point Blank. Maybe. And Shakespeare stole the plot of Hamlet...what's your point? Nobody can or should be beyond influences. Your choice is to either enlist and reshape those influences for your own distinctive artistic purposes, or just chew the cud of them like a dull cow.I've never seen the flailing-away scene before. It looks and feels like something that could only have been done by these actors in this scene in this movie. But the police captain chewing out the renegade tough-guy detective, and barking that if you pull another stunt like this, I'll have your badge? That scene I've seen. If the cop ain't Clint, I'm not interested.David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine, and runs the blog for the Laissez Faire Books web site, where he has been discussing many urgently important topics of the highest possible interest to you.

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine and runs the blog for Laissez Faire Books, where he recently posted about libertarian views on immigation.

The Get-a-Job Theory of Income Generation

David M. Brown — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:31:52 EST

Is there any way to make money besides doing a job? By "doing a job" I mean engaging in productive effort that creates or abets the creation of things people might buy. It needn't entail a conventional nine-to-five gig; nor hammering out widgets or growing potatoes yourself. You can be an investor working out of a garage who facilitates transactions between producers and consumers. If you are creating value for a market, that's a job. By "making money," I mean being voluntarily paid for doing said job. Stealing is not "making money." Instead of abetting the productive process, stealing interrupts and assaults it. Stealing is neither economic exchange nor charity, but a coercive taking away. Even if you steal funds from someone who stole them himself, the funds originated with someone who did do a job, did produce. Some people, who say they are not crooks, undertake to learn how to acquire stolen goods as an alleged means of entrepreneurial self-enlargement. They receive the instruction, acquire the stolen goods, and then pat themselves on the back for getting off the couch and "doing something." Are they onto something?"The money is just there waiting for you, the government has all these programs!" say the people on the infomercial for the National Grants Conference. Who should attend? "Basically everyone should attend, to find out if you can make a better life for yourself with opportunity money from the U.S. Government." Hey. "Opportunity money." On the NGC infomercial, former Congressman Critter J.C. Watts is seated at the brain-trust table, nodding, giving it a Republican spin. "We want to help people be entrepreneurial!" he burbles. "Independence is what it's all about!" "You know, why not take advantage," says one of the moderators, agreeing. "Rob, rob, rob, steal, steal, steal!" chimes in another. "The duped taxpayers have been forced to fork over all this wealth to the government, so it's out there, waiting for you! This seminar teaches you how to grab it!" Back to Watts, nodding sagely: "You know, it's an opportunity! America is the land of opportunity! Come to the seminar!" Another of the premier how-to-steal-from-thy-neighbor gurus is Riddler-clone Matthew Lesko. He hosts infomercials but I don't think also seminars. Maybe his collations of theft opportunities, books with titles like Getting Yours: The Complete Guide to Government Money, generate enough sucker-boodle to keep a roof overhead even sans seminars. Work? Yes, work is involved. Don't think that getting free money comes without Herculean exertion!"Once you have identified the program or programs that can help you, your work has just begun," says Getting Yours. "Now you have to get the money. Volumes and volumes have been written and consultants have been paid thousands of dollars to counsel individuals and organizations on the ways and means of obtaining government financing. There is no mystery in the method. You do not need a Ph.D. or a Washington office. All you need is patience, determination and hard work, if you are eligible." Lesko should have been a bad guy in Atlas Shrugged. His neurotic demeanor is just what you would expect from a Randian arch evading arch-villain. Lesko babbles, zanily, not only on the infomercial but even when he is just talking, if I recall correctly the late-night talk show on which another guest suggested he ease up on the caffeine. According to my theory, Lesko is so hyper and self-parodying because he senses what a lout he is and that what he proposes, i.e., systematically draining the lifeblood of innocent others, cannot be safely debated. Let us not give credit where credit is not due. This guy isn't a moral philosopher trying to thrash out a quandary saying, "Hey, you know, if you're starving in an alley, maybe you can be forgiven for grabbing an apple from somebody's bodega to stay alive." No, don't look to this guy for musings about the state of nature, the proper function of government, the wellsprings of civilization, what to do on a lifeboat after you have opened the last can of peaches, or anything like that. Lesko advocates stealing, a.k.a. government grant application, as a first resort in getting along in life. Except he never gets so far as advocacy; he takes for granted that everybody already believes in stealing as a way of life, just like him. And he'd rather not know different. He comes at you at a million miles an hour with his lurcho mannerisms and Riddler-knockoff getup from fear that if he slows down for even a beat he'll hear you clearing your throat and asking: "Hey, but, wait a minute, isn't stealing wrong?"Originally published at isil.org. David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine, and runs the blog for the Laissez Faire Books web site, where he has been talking about Wal-Mart, corruption, rice sales, and Google versus the government from an anti-stealing perspective.

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine and runs the blog for Laissez Faire Books, where he recently posted about libertarian views on immigation.

Why I Hate Sports

David M. Brown — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:19:39 EST

When I was growing up, there was a determined cabal of sports watchers in my home who succeeded in making regular incursions into what was rightfully movie time. In addition to not having videos in those days, we also didn't have any, whatever you call it, second TV, either. We did have library cards, so it's okay, I kept busy. But if I read more Jules Verne and Arthur Conan Doyle than other kids did, I also saw fewer movies than did the kids in homes where they didn't let the sports cut into the movie time. That is why I will spend the rest of my life as someone who as a kid saw fewer movies than he might have because of the way sports were allowed to cut into the movie time. Bitter? You bet I'm bitter, bubba. Bananas, bath, bildung, borscht! I am bitter and alliterative, a lot!Movie theaters. Okay. I remember seeing the last two thirds of Beneath the Planet of the Apes and the first third of Beneath the Planet of the Apes, in that order, in the theater. (Time to go, Dad decided; this is where we came in. Yeah, just throw the celluloid at me in whatever order, I'll rearrange it in my brain later.) The next movie I remember seeing in the theater was Star Wars. So for most of my years growing up it was TV fare or bust. Did I also see the original Roller Ball in the theater, the one with James Caan? Possibly. It sort of rings a bell, or maybe I just saw it more than once on TV. I remember liking it well enough.So now you're saying, ah hah, you, Brown, like a movie "about sports," therefore you like sports as well, gotcha! Nice try smart guy, but no, a movie "about sports" is not the same thing as "sports." I like many movies "about sports." But if you look hard enough they usually turn out to be about people and conflicts.Sports, by contrast, are about human-looking mannequins running around on a field of some sort, or in a boxing ring, trying to achieve some sort of point advantage, or make "first down" or whatever. (In one of the sports games the players keep trying to put a ball through a hoop, and the more times you put it through the hoop, the more points you get...people watch this.)There are no characters in sports games, and the so-called conflict is a completely bogus setup, like wrestling. If it weren't for the weird makeshift rules and the attempts to get points, the members on the opposing teams wouldn't have any reason to battle each other at all. Sure, the two sides do clash mightily, in a manner of speaking, and it's all very "exciting" in the minds of the CGI-created crowd hollering in the stands. But the clash is meaningless. All the competitors stop instantly as soon as the clock runs out. Then they wipe off the simulated blood and sweat and knee injuries and go home.Movies, when they are well done, depict a conflict that you can be persuaded is real, or at least seduced into not caring whether it's real, as opposed to this thing of just trying to accumulate points and then going home when the clock runs out. Movies have the appeal of art. Games of sport are not art, and they're not life either. They're just...sports. There is not even any dialogue to engage you, unless you want to count all the repetitive grunts, and possibly some barking at a referee.Now you are saying, it is sad that you are so predictable, that there are indeed characters in the sports games. Real people in fact. And we the fans do care about their ambitions and fates. We are inspired by these heroic athletes. That is why we so nobly yelp our garbled incoherent pleas at the television. We know the point averages, the teams with which the players played before, something about their hobbies and endeavors, their advertising deals and their music videos if they decide to become rappers, etc. "I know all about Marcus Maxwell or Wade Boggles or whomever and I pray constantly for his success," you might insist.Sorry, but that's cheating. You are conning yourself into becoming interested in something, a sports game, not at all interesting in itself, by dint of escaping the confines of the game to pore over sports statistics, listen to interviews, read news stories about this or that player and how his parents gave him his first golf club while he was still in the womb, attend to the pontificating of the pundits talking over the game, etc. Can you plausibly claim that "pundit voiceover" is integral to the progress on the field? No. But in order to fool yourself into believing that the repetitive, boring, fake, sham, phony, vacuous, time-killing world of the game is at all bearable, you are obliged to glom onto some tawdry unimportant facts and supercilious opinings which may indeed be of fleeting interest insofar as they insipidly go, but which have nothing whatever to do with the contest as such and its ludicrously artificial terms and how these play out in a particular game.When I watch a movie, I don't have to know anything about the actors as they are in real life to get caught up in the world of the movie. I can skip the tabloids. I don't have to listen to the director in a voiceover saying, "Okay, what we did in this scene is very interesting and successful because...." The movie just stands or falls on its own. Totally unlike sports, a kind of opiate for persons with nothing better to do but watch sports.David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine, from which this article is adapted. He also runs the blog for the Laissez Faire Books web site, where he has been talking about Wal-Mart versus commies, spychips in your wallet, the secret to earning a billion dollars per second, and other things.

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine and runs the blog for Laissez Faire Books, where he recently posted about libertarian views on immigation.

It Is Time for Wal-Mart to Do the John Galt Thing

David M. Brown — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 05:34:25 EST

I recently proposed at the Laissez Faire Books Blog that Wal-Mart shut down all of its operations in Maryland. I explained that they should do this immediately, in protest of a Draconian new state law mandating how much they spend on the health care insurance of their employees. I instructed Wal-Mart to hold a press conference in order, first, to apologize for its actual sins -- for example, occasions on which it has collaborated with local governments to eject property owners from their land on spurious eminent-domain grounds -- and, second, to declare that given the right of Wal-Mart officers to bargain freely with Wal-Mart workers, Wal-Mart would not cooperate with the new law. I said Wal-Mart should announce that all operations in Maryland will begin to be phased out starting now, a process to be concluded within two weeks unless the Maryland legislators saw fit to rescind the new law.There were critics of my proposal, whom I answered in a subsequent post. One of my critics, a blogger, went so far as to claim at his blog site that because corporations are a "creation of the state" (like, presumably, all organizations that benefit from legal conventions and protections), the government may therefore properly compel its members to do virtually anything when they are acting as part of the corporation - including fork over more dough for employee health insurance. My new arch-enemy suggests that this is so because a corporation, being a confection of the state and hence "not a person," can possess no rights. It exists at the sufferance of the state and is thus obliged to be the state's bitch. I may be paraphrasing. I am not fully satisfied with what I have posted to date at LFB. The more I consider the claims of my new arch-enemy and the assumptions on which they rest, the more I realize how deeply destructive these assumptions must be of the individual rights of all of us if followed to their logical conclusion. In fact, in a society governed by these assumptions, all our rights would be wiped out.It is, crucially, the various individuals within a corporation who enjoy rights, including any contracted-for rights. This is so even should the law speak of the corporation as a fictional person as a matter of convention. Mr. Enemy wants to dispute this; i.e., he wants to dispute that the participants retain rights as individuals to freedom of action within the contracted terms. But he can't dispute it unless he relies upon the implicit assumption that an individual and his rights cease to exist whenever the individual enters into a contractual-legal agreement with one or more other individuals. Otherwise, Mr. Enemy would have no trouble agreeing that a State Legislature should not be micro-managing Wal-Mart's business decisions. At most he would simply be making a not irrelevant but essentially separate argument about the need to repair alleged deficiencies in the laws governing corporations.If Mr. Enemy's rights-annihilating assumption were true, its scope would be wider than he seems to realize. It would apply to many more persons than those who participate in corporate enterprises. For it would mean that you and I and all other persons lose our rights as individuals each time we enter into an agreement that generates any kind of persisting organization of persons subject to a rule of law. And what is the most basic such organization but society itself?Mr. Enemy's assumptions imply that as soon as individuals in a state of nature become peaceful and deliberative enough to form a society and government, to form any law-governed polity at all, they may then properly be ordered about by the rulers of that regime, and no matter how ostensibly reprehensible the orders may be. That's Hobbes waving in the distance. Society under a rule of law would then be viewed as a "mere" concoction of the state and of course "not a person"...just as a corporation made possible by contract and rule of law would be viewed as a "mere" concoction of the state and "not a person." This much is true: groups of persons are not the same as the individual persons within the group. It's the individuals who are the individuals. This ultimate consequence of Mr. Enemy's perhaps insufficiently attended assumptions may well be what the Ralph Naders and other would-be dictators have in mind: the power to govern a land in which no individual citizen possesses any legally recognized and enduring rights that any ruler need respect. After all, it is harder to social-engineer from on high if the little people down below possess individual rights considered by the law to be sacred and inviolable. (To be clear about my own political-ethical understanding, I should stress that I don't believe that persons have or could ever possibly have a "right" to health care, or to any other good or service, that exists apart from obligations freely incurred by others, e.g. by parents when they choose to raise children. What we have is the right to the freedom of action we need to make an honest living - which would be one based on voluntary trade with others, not robbery.)We must thus accept the stunning fact that Mr. Enemy's argument is not really about limited liability or any other debatable legal feature of corporations. Rather, his view implies that the very act of engaging in organized cooperation under the aegis of law in and of itself constitutes a wholesale relinquishing of one's rights as a person. One becomes in consequence merely a society-part - just as an officer of a corporation becomes, in consequence of joining the corporation, merely a corporate-part. And though you can quit a corporation, how do you quit society without moving to a desert island? Meanwhile, the necessities of making a living in any more complex way than growing carrots in a garden require that one form and join sundry sub-organizations within a society - such sub-organizations as corporations. The problem is a single problem, the assault on the ability of the individual to act a single assault.It seems that the desert island is the only solution. Given Mr. Enemy's assumptions, the only way to remain an individual, to retain one's personhood, would be to reside in complete isolation from the rest of society, with not one other human being in the vicinity, nor any scrap of law.And that can't be right, can it?David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine, a general-interest Internet magazine, and runs the blog for the Laissez Faire Books web site, where he talks about Wal-Mart, annoying laws against being annoying, and other things.

David M. Brown is the publisher of The Webzine and runs the blog for Laissez Faire Books, where he recently posted about libertarian views on immigation.