Ilana:
It has been years since I last read your articles, an unfortunate blunder on my part! Thank you for your clear unswerving thinking about the nature of just war, the injustice of American military adventures, the bloodcurdling totalitarianism of radical jihadists, and the ugly spectacle of Objectivists embracing the authoritarianism of the neo-conservatives.
For years, I have referred to myself as a “small o” objectivist, because I concur with Rand’s ideas about the logical primacy of reason to ethics; about morality as values proper to living in accordance with one’s nature, both as an individual and as a human being; and about capitalism as the only moral economic system. However, I shudder at the thought of being associated with neo-objectivist enforcers of cosmic “justice” and democracy. So I’ll have to devise some other label: classical individualist or objectivist libertarian or crank Austrian.
It is sad and amusing to read the attacks by “Objectivists” on Rand fans who oppose non-defensive American wars. One in particular holds forth like a Catholic Cardinal, beseeching his followers to avoid the snare of various subtle “philosophical errors” that supposedly delude those who disagree with him.
When one defends the view that non-interventionism is eminently practical for Americans, one of the Cardinal’s Cronies opines that “rationalists” are often forced into defensive mode, whereby they engage in throwing logically disconnected facts and figures at their opponents for the purpose, not of enlightenment, but of obscuration! This is a clear case, according to the Crony, and seconded by the Cardinal, of a “snowjob.”
Whew!
Your writing is a blizzard of clear thinking!
Yours truly,
Mark Humphrey
ABC A-OKAY
My first observation with respect to the Republican Debate in New Hampshire concerns the anchors. Charles Gibson of ABC especially, but also Scott Spradling, the WMUR-TV news anchor, looked awfully good when compared to the cable clowns.
I was reminded how a veteran newsman (Gibson) ought to conduct himself, as opposed to a seasoned entertainer (Anderson Cooper).
The first (Gibson), is formal and neutral. For all we know, he’s probably a flaming liberal but we are none the wiser because of an intelligent, detached delivery and demeanor. The last (Cooper), has substituted journalism with advocacy, so that poignant inquires about issues (Gibson) are replaced with whiny demands whiny demands (Cooper) such as, “What are you going to do about making taxpayers pay for my health care?” Or, “When will you join Gore in admitting there’s a global-warming crisis?”
Fox Noise anchors are as “intelligent” CNN’s noise-makers, except they have a different impetus, if as transparent.
The Huckabee Weird/Creepy/Slimy Factor
Here are some Huckabee highlights to consider before caucusing:
1) Huckabee’s bizarre reaction to Benazir Bhutto’s assassination:
“In light of what happened in Pakistan yesterday, it’s interesting that there were more Pakistanis who illegally crossed the border than of any other nationality except for those immediately south of our border, 660 last year form Pakistan who came into our country illegally because we don’t have secure borders.”
In another context, the topic has merit; as a response to the Bhutto murder, it’s unmoored from reality and loopy.
2) Versatile Huck’s sly and slippery advertising strategy:
Huckabee convened a press conference to announce that he had made a mean ad about Mitt, but, because he was so magnanimous, he would not be running this attack ad, but, “Wait a sec; don’t run off like that. So that you appreciate fully just how magnificent I really am, I want to show you what I’m talking about.”
Thereupon God Boy proceeds to screen the X-rated ad.
Live Free or Die Hard: Geeks As Gods
I enjoy Bruce Willis, but even he can’t be expected to make a pathetic script and characters come alive in the latest “Die Hard” flick.
“Live Free or Die Hard” is studded with familiar Hollywood clichés:
The future of the US—and hence the free world—lies in the capable hands of unkept, dirty-looking, young 20-something computer geeks.
Older men like Willis may be muscular and heroic, but they are essentially dumb—devoid of the young’s brilliance, something they keep chanting. What’s more, everything about them is so yesterday—the music they like, the sort of parents they are; it’s all just crap, deserving of the hissing contempt of the young.
The shallow progeny has no idea dad’s daily drudgery includes many a heroic feat. Only when dad nearly dies rescuing the young bitch’s worthless behind does bitch decide to take on his last name.
This admittedly is the staple Hollywood pabulum. You’ve seen it in every single film and TV series: youngsters sneering at their parents, dishing out dirt, telling the parent—dad predominantly—how worthless he is. For his part, instead of cutting off the viper’s funds, dad grovels on his belly begging for some crumbs from the imperious offspring’s metaphoric table.
Yes, these are undying Hollywood themes, but that doesn’t mean they’re not as sick-making each time they’re encountered.
I watched the film with two technologically savvy “older” men (aged 42 and 52 respectively), who’re rather competent at problem solving. As much as they (and I) love action films, nothing about the special effects was believable.
Perhaps most ludicrous is Hollywood’s mythical, infantile conception of computers. Seat a PC savvy type—provided he’s young, of course—in front of a random monitor, and, evidently, there’s no end to the information he or she can squeeze from the thing, including to intercept a fighter aircraft flying above.
Don’t these people consult anyone who actually works in the business?
The usual useless idiots will try and extract heroic symbolism from this sorry script. Resorting to symbolism is subjective—to project one’s own infantile projections onto a cultural product is certainly an intellectual cop-out. Objective merits are what ought to count first and foremost in the assessment of all such products.
Consider a good review of “Live Free or Die Hard” as the litmus test for the stupid reviewer.