Positive Liberty

Civil asset forfeiture, meet copyright enforcement.

Because, you know, asset forfeiture just works so well in stopping illegal drugs. Here’s the text of the bill.

Yikes.

As a fan of professional football and college basketball, I pay scant attention to the NBA even when my hometown Washington Wizards make it to the playoffs. I missed, therefore, a bit of good natured sports rivalry wherein some enterprising D.C. Papa John’s pizza franchisee made up some T shirts calling Cleveland Cavaliers star LeBron James a “crybaby.” Frankly, it would take more than a free T shirt to get me to eat a Papa John’s pizza (or any other franchise pizza, for that matter) but apparently Cleveland’s Papa John’s shops have responded, offering local fans a pie for a mere 23 cents in “homage to James’ jersey number.” A pretty good deal, huh?

Alas, those pesky laws of supply and demand and something about price elasticity struck with 90 minute or longer lines quickly forming. “In suburban Cleveland, people stood wrapped in blankets outside a store in Westlake and the line was two blocks long in University Heights.” But, hey, it isn’t like a person’s time is valuable, too, is it?

One of Constant Viewer’s many pet peeves is the superfluous rutting scene all R rated movies are apparently required by law to include. One of the few things Deception has going for it is that its montage of carnal abandon is at least tenuously related to the story. Alas, aside from a bit of cameo rutting by the still sexy in her sixties Charlotte Rampling, the sex scenes are on a par with the rest of Deception. As a purely formal matter, the movie falls in the suspense or thriller, drama and romance genres; but anyone claiming any legitimacy to such descriptions would be guilty of a far worse act of deception than this tepid yet overwrought Ewen McGregor and Hugh Jackman vehicle.

A case can be made for the proposition that neither Jet Li nor Jackie Chan has won the American audiences their talents deserve. While Jet Li’s martial arts skills may be more to the purist’s tastes, Chan boasts not only superb skills and a choreographer’s sensibility but genuine comedic talent, to boot. The Forbidden Kingdom is their first collaboration and it is a sheer treat to watch them work together. Even if martial arts movies are not your cup of tea (and especially if the only such film you ever saw was when someone dragged you off to Crouching Captions Tiger, Hidden Wires Dragon), Constant Viewer would be surprised if you didn’t like The Forbidden Kingdom and especially surprised if your pre-teen didn’t find the “rainmaker” bit the funniest thing he’s ever seen.

Speaking of pre-adolescent humor, Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay may just be the best or at least the second best Harold and Kumar movie ever. Constant viewer gave a pass on Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle but he has seen The Odd Couple, Slackers and enough Cheech & Chong and Kevin Smith movies to get it. There are a half dozen solid laughs in Escape even if you’re not stoned or don’t find Neil Patrick Harris per se hilarious. If you are and you do, well, you won’t be disappointed, dude.

Iron Man grossed just a tad short of $100 million on its opening weekend, ushering in the summer movie season with its first big hit. Nothing Constant Viewer could possibly write at this point can change that fact even given his huge influence with literally dozens of potential moviegoers, but it must nonetheless be said that, however many good things there may be about Iron Man, they do not all add up to make a good movie.

Here’s the thing. Superhero origin movies are difficult at best to pull off such that (1) preexisting fans’ canonical expectations are satisfied while (2) the non-cognoscenti walk out thinking they saw a self-contained piece of entertainment. There must, after all, ultimately be more going on than simply how Spandex Man came to be tarted up in special effects, and that something more is technically defined as a story.

In Iron Man, that story is that fabulously wealthy, genius playboy arms merchant Tony Stark idiotically demonstrates his company’s latest weapon system in the Middle East as opposed to, say, Arizona, thereby idiotically permitting himself to be kidnapped by Middle Eastern bad guys who, for reasons of estimated impact on total world grosses, are only generically anti-American and whose leader is perfectly willing to cut a deal with an even badder and, for reasons of estimated impact on total world grosses, decidedly non-Middle Eastern bad guy.

Necessity being the mother of invention, the injured Stark manages despite being held captive in a cave to upgrade in a week or so from the world’s least portable pacemaker to a dilithium crystal powered flux capacitor, to cobble together sufficient armor plating to deflect his captives’ conventional yet hardly insignificant firepower and, oh by the way, to jury-rig a Wily Coyote type jetpack to propel him sufficiently far from the bad guys to escape without, as a result, killing himself on impact, too. So far we can all agree it’s pretty plausible, no?

Anyway, to make a long (and largely tedious) story mercifully shorter, Stark survives, develops a guilty conscience about the fact that his weapons are being used to kill white people, too, and swiftly progresses through the three classic comic book Iron Man looks with the help of a robotic arm with more personality than half the rest of the cast. The obligatory super-villain emerges and, not a moment too soon, a battle ensues. When the CGI dust settles the sequel is set up.

Look, casting Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark was a stroke of genius and it was wonderful that Downey could work the film into his schedule between rehabs. Gwyneth Paltrow’s quasi-romantic interest works well, giving Paltrow’s much publicized stiletto heel fetish an opportunity to be put on display on the talk show circuit. Jeff Bridges plays the unhappy arms merchant partner and Terrance Howard plays the sympathetic black man role as well as their parts permit. The directing, camera work and special effects are brisk and effective. In fact, everything about Iron Man works except Iron Man. Taken as a whole, it is simply too predictable to engender the slightest bit of dramatic tension from the point where Stark escapes from the cave.

The fact is that Iron Man is splashy and big-screen worthy and just about everything a summer blockbuster should be except a good movie. If you haven’t seen it already, by all means don’t let Constant Viewer stop you. But don’t say he recommended it, either.

You can always count on WorldNetDaily to express such an unreal understanding on homosexuality. WND produces two articles about an antigay administrator at the University of Toledo who was suspended for writing an antigay column. Time permits me to discuss only a few points.

First, whatever the legal or constitutional issues involved (whether this is a private school not bound by the First Amendment or a state school that is), it was lame to punish this woman for writing the column. There is plenty wrong with what this woman wrote; and the best way to counter that is to criticize her with more speech, exactly what I’m doing.

Here is one of the offending paragraphs, illustrating her poor argumentation:

“As a black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims.’ Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman. I am genetically and biologically a black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few.

Continue Reading »

By any reasonable measure, my choice of what to eat on November 4, 2008 is going to have more of an effect on my life than my choice at the polls.

My vote will not be the decisive one for a variety of reasons: Maryland is solidly Democratic, it has few enough electoral votes that it may not matter anyway, I may vote Libertarian, and — my personal favorite reason — I suspect that even in almost totally fraud-free elections, the coveted marginal vote is often just swallowed up by the marginal frauds.

Why is it then that the one choice — the election — gets all this attention, even months in advance, and the other choice — my dinner on November 4 — does not? I should be arguing with myself about vegetables, no?

Mark Skousen described the new book, “Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets: Surviving the Public Spectacle in Finance and Politics,” as, “A cock-eyed, frolicking hell of a read.”

Anyone familiar with William (Bill) Bonner’s work at The Daily Reckoning would expect no less. He and his co-author, Lila Rajiva, used poignant rhetoric, colorful analogies, and often surprising humor, to drive home the point that following the crowd or trusting modern day prophets is a recipe for human disaster.

Decades ago, Hayek taught us about the Knowledge Problem in dry prose. Bonner and Rajiva expound upon and apply the Knowledge Problem to current events, and the result is an instructive laugh-fest.

But Bonner and Rajiva aren’t contrarians for the sake of ideology or humor. They want to establish that the world we’re in and the events we’re witnessing are NOT rational. Therefore, they canNOT be scientifically managed or anticipated. Their primary concern is the investor looking to increase the value of his portfolio: Following the crowd or taking the guru too seriously, that same poor investor might lose it all.

Bonner and Rajiva warn people of the dangers of world improvers and self-professed experts. Once again, they use shocking questions and humorous tales to illustrate their points.

1. They openly question insanity — Continue Reading »

Mildred Loving has died. From the Washington Post:

Mildred Loving, a black woman whose challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down such laws nationwide, has died, her daughter said Monday.

Peggy Fortune said Loving, 68, died Friday at her home in rural Milford. She did not disclose the cause of death.

Loving and her white husband, Richard, changed history in 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld their right to marry. The ruling struck down laws banning racially mixed marriages in at least 17 states.

They had married in Washington in 1958, when she was 18. Returning to their Virginia hometown, they were arrested within weeks and convicted on charges of “cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth,” according to their indictments.

Farewell to a courageous and exemplary American, one who continued until the end of her life to stand up for what she believed in.

Alexander Hamilton’s “The Farmer Refuted” is a classic piece of American literature justifying rebellion against Great Britain. Less well known is the fact that Hamilton was replying to Tory loyalist, the Reverend Samuel Seabury, the first American Episcopal bishop. This page collects the pieces of literature to which Hamilton was responding. I’m fairly certain it was the third one down, this one, to which Hamilton specifically responded.

Regarding the theological implications of the letters, I’ve already conceded traditional Christianity to be compatible with both sides. When Hamilton wrote “The Farmer Refuted” in 1775 he didn’t have any kind of established record as an orthodox Christian, while Seabury, as an Anglican minister, certainly did.

The content of “The Farmer Refuted” certainly has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity but rather relies on theistic naturalism and rationalism to advance its claims. In short, it is an Enlightenment, not a Christian document. Here are some highlights: Continue Reading »

Rev. John MacArthur is sort of a poster boy for traditional, Calvinistic, fundamentalist Christian theology. He also commands the highest respected within those circles. When notable evangelicals and Catholics signed a statement forming a socially conservative political alliance, he was one of the first to caution against the potential blurring of their profound theological differences. And he has chastised Billy Graham (and the Pope) for intimating that non-Christians perhaps will be saved. He also teaches literal 6-day creation. In short, he is the antithesis of a theological liberal. And this theology is not my cup of tea, at all.

As I’ve noted before, one thing I admire about MacArthur is the way he keeps his faith pure from political whoring, the consequences be damned. His understanding of Romans 13 demands concluding that the American Revolution was conceived in sin, that the Declaration of Independence is an anti-biblical document. I will charitably conceded alternate literal interpretations of Romans 13; I just want the other side to understand the strong biblical grounds for MacArthur’s view and the longstanding tradition it has in orthodox hermeneutics. Continue Reading »

Read my interview at Fearful Symmetries. I spent quite a few hours working on this; but that was only because the questions were so outstanding.

I’m sure the timing had to do with the (hopefully soon-forgotten) movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” An email, targeted at Christians, arrived in my Inbox that read, “In the Beginning… What Really Happened?” But it was the next sentence that jumped out at me.

“Science insists that life and the universe are nothing more than cosmic accidents.”

A link labeled “where does the evidence really lead?” led to a promotional video — starring the Intelligent Design movement’s Who’s-Who.

But that sentence about science is really troubling.

First, science never “insists.” That’s a straw man. Physical science involves constant questioning and never quite arriving. Each mystery solved unlocks several new questions to be resolved. Only a scientIST can insIST.

It is impossible for science to “say” anything. Science is not a person, nor is it a democracy. Science is practiced by a sometimes incorrigible, generally competitive bunch of people, often hell-bent on proving each other wrong and getting famous with some new discovery. Now, there is, generally, a scientific consensus, but science is always provisional. In most instances you are well-advised to place your bets carefully on the consensus, because it’s been known to change — even quite abruptly. But evolution, which is extensively researched, well-cataloged, and supremely-tried, is one of the safest scientific bets.

Second, statements about the purpose of life and the meaning of the universe are NOT scientific. They are philosophical speculations, outside the purview of science — beyond falsification. Science is mechanistic — obsessed with measuring material, unable to locate ethereal meaning. Science is a tool and, as we’ll see, it can easily be misused.

Third, can you see, hear, touch, smell, or taste a cosmic accident (no double entendre intended)? How would you quantify and define a cosmic accident? How would you test it and, most importantly, falsify that? Science, properly practiced, doesn’t involve metaphysical properties. Theologians and philosophers can interpret and speculate and, in my humble opinion, even have some degree of success. But there’s no materialist method for measuring what is and what is not a cosmic accident.

The great boogeyman of the Intelligent Design movement is Richard Dawkins — or as a hilarious, viral, spoof video portrays him, Dick to the Dawk.

But the supreme irony is that there’s another boogeyman on the field — Phillip Johnson, the intellectual godfather and chief strategist of the Intelligent Design movement. Johnson fundamentally agrees with Dawkins! Both shape the battle as evolution wins, God loses. As theologian John Haught put it, “…all in their own ways, carelessly tolerate a simplistic conflation of science with ideological assumptions, whether these skeptics be religious or materialistic.” (Haught, God After Darwin, p 31).

And let’s be candid here: Richard Dawkins’ movement, New Atheism, and Phillip Johnson’s movement, Intelligent Design, need each other. They are thesis and antithesis. They are the Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, or Tom and Jerry.

Now the aforementioned email advertisement might have been accurate if it had read, “Richard Dawkins insists that life and the universe are nothing more than cosmic accidents.” But that probably wouldn’t have provoked a sufficient number of Christians to click the link, so they too could learn how to burn straw men.

But Richard Dawkins did indeed say something almost exactly like that. Here’s the quote: Continue Reading »

A very interesting post on undergraduate moral relativism from a philosophy professor who has no doubt seen his share (h/t: Mark Olson). I was reminded of my favorite quote from Benito Mussolini (yes, I have one):

Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition… If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective, immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity… From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.

Moral relativism does not imply toleration. It doesn’t imply anything, actually, so fascism is just as much a non sequitur as the rest. I’m inclined to accept Pruss’s second theory of why undergrads are so drawn to relativism:

Consider first a relativism about an area of life that does not expressly involve ethics, say esthetic or gustatory relativism (what is beautiful or tasty to me may not be beautiful or tasty to you, and there is no objective, mind-independent beauty or tastiness). This kind of relativism does support quite a bit of tolerance. If Century Sundae is not tasty to you in the way it is to me, I should not impose it on you, and I should be tolerant of your desire to eat the mildly repellent (to me) Chunky Monkey. Here, the relativism is sufficiently limited that it does not undercut, but instead supports, tolerance.

As a result of this, one might conclude that relativism in general supports tolerance about the praxis that is relatively evaluated. However, in the special case where the relativism is moral relativism, this does not hold. The reason that esthetic or gustatory relativism supports tolerance is because of objective moral principles concerning respect for differing preferences and views. But once the relativism becomes moral relativism, these principles are undercut, a fact one might easily miss.

…but I’d note that this approach also begs the question. Why should we be indifferent toward aesthetic or gustatory choices? Because we should practice aesthetic and gustatory relativism. We should because we should. This form of relativism therefore doesn’t explain why such things should be indifferent to us. To do that, we’d need to elaborate a theory of moral sentiments in which neither transitory sense data nor aesthetics were morally salient, and this is (I think) rather difficult to do.

Today is the National Day of Prayer. Here is the groups website, complete with the mythical picture of George Washington, on his knees praying at Valley Forge (Washington was a man of prayer, but didn’t pray on his knees; the reason why I say it’s mythical is because scholars have debunked that the incident ever occurred). I don’t know much about this group. To the extent that it is a private organization I don’t care about what it does or how it prays. However to the extent that this group is endorsed by government, it should be praying in generic monotheistic prayers only because that, not Christian theology, is what America is founded on.

The first four Presidents, Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln never publicly prayed in Jesus’ name (neither do we have records in their private writings doing so). Further, they believed in natural religion, which holds all good men of all religions (regardless of whether they are “Judeo-Christian”) worship the same God. It was this natural religion that gave “all good men” access to the Deity that was key to forming America’s public theology.

In his column Roy Moore recognizes that generic prayers are not consistent with orthodox Christian theology.

Sadly, too many judges today like to call prayer and other civil acknowledgments of God mere “ceremonial deism,” a historic relic that has no “religious” significance. In fact, in cases involving public prayer in courts and legislative bodies, only those traditions that have decades or more of history behind them tend to survive legal challenge. Unfortunately, that means that only empty, generic references to God are allowed.

Jesus called such lip service “hypocrisy” when the Pharisees exalted their man-made traditions above the true worship of God.

“Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias (Isaiah) prophesy of you, saying, ‘This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’ (Matt. 15:7-9)”

Accordingly, Moore is in a state of denial or ignorance about America’s Founders’ actual political theology. “The founders prayed because they believed in a real God who could actually meet their needs.” Moore cites George Washington, Ben Franklin and Abe Lincoln as figures to support his thesis. Presumably he believes they invoked the “real God.” As mentioned none of them publicly (or do the records show privately) prayed in Jesus name. All systematically used generic philosophical titles for God. Moore is confused by the fact that they could also use biblical allusion when speaking to Christian audiences. As Moore recounted:

Benjamin Franklin, remembering these daily prayers, reminded the Constitutional Convention 13 years later of the need for “imploring the assistance of heaven” lest their proceedings fare “no better than the Builders of Babel.”

The problem is Moore and the Christian America crowd interpret the use of biblical allusion such as Franklin’s to mean they believed in the one true Biblical God, whose way is exclusive. Wrong. Franklin was, like the other key Founders, a theological unitarian who believed all good men worshipped the same God. As such they could speak in biblical allusion one minute and then turn around and speak as if Muslims and unconverted Native Americans worshipped the same God they did. This may not be “ceremonial deism” as the secularists articulate it. But it arguably nonetheless qualifies as the kind of generic religion that the Bible criticizes. And it is what America’s public institutions are founded on, like it or not.

This is shameful, and I am deeply disappointed to read it. Pam’s House Blend reports,

The Smith College Republicans sponsored a speaking event featuring Ryan Sorba, author of the upcoming book The Born Gay Hoax. After about twenty minutes he was forced to abandon his speech after protesters forced their way into the room and drowned him out. I’ll send videos and articles when they are available, but I thought I’d give you a heads up and ask you to please cover this action. I couldn’t be more proud to be a Smithie right now, after I saw so many amazing young feminists come together to stand up against this asshat and his hate.

I haven’t read the book, but I suspect from the clips I have seen of Mr. Sorba speaking that I probably would disagree with most of it and find the rest of it tendentious nonsense. It doesn’t matter. I’m even gay, I’m pretty sure I’ve always been that way, and even that doesn’t matter. This is America, and we don’t answer bad ideas in the public square with violence. The rot in our political culture runs deep these days, and it’s hardly conservatives alone who are responsible (though they are, in part). Real Americans shouldn’t behave this way no matter what policy outcomes they favor.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Sorba was there legally. There is no hint in any of the coverage that I can find on the story that would suggest Sorba was trespassing at the university, however questionable the choice may have been to invite him. A university is a place where people come together precisely so that they may encounter many different ideas, and often highly disagreeable ones. A principled response might have included some non-disruptive demonstration of disagreement, perhaps a few very pointed questions, and maybe a counter-lecture the following day or week aimed at rebutting the claims Mr. Sorba made.

The answer to an event like this is never to shout down the speaker. Not even if it were Hitler himself: Shouting down people you disagree with is the essence of the fascist method, regardless of the message on your lips. It fits badly with civilized behavior and reflects only the protesters’ own lack of faith in their cause.

Whether Mr. Sorba is right or wrong — and privately, I think he’s very likely a loon — what the protesters did here only ended up making him look right. Kudos to Pam’s commentators, who have overwhelmingly agreed that this is not the way to go.