…and evolutionary psychology. These are ugly truths for gender feminists who deny human nature.
Category Archives: Philosophy
Forbidden Planet
Some thoughts on the SF classic and its implications, both historical and today, from Bill Whittle. And if you haven’t yet, sign up for Declaration Entertainment.
Having It Both Ways
I think that the administration’s position on DOMA is craven (so what else is new…?).
If they really believe that the law is unconstitutional (a position with which I don’t necessarily disagree), it’s nonsensical, and in fact a violation of the president’s oath of office to uphold the Constitution (which is the highest law in the land), to enforce it. I thought that George Bush should have been impeached not for signing McCain-Feingold, but for doing so while explicitly stating that he believed it to be unconstitutional. This was a blatant violation of his oath of office, though he obviously didn’t realize it. In both cases — this and the Obama DOMA position — it is trivializing the oath for the sake of pandering. In Bush’s case it was to the so-called “moderates” (i.e., mindless, or at least principleless) and in the current president’s case, to his base. It is not up to the other two branches to defer their judgment of constitutionality on untested law to the Supreme Court — they must follow it once such a judgment is rendered, but unless and until it is, they are obligated by their oath of office to follow their own. If the president really believes that DOMA is not only unconstitutional, but that there are really no reasonable arguments on the other side, then he is bound to not enforce it, and to get such a ruling as soon as possible (an eventuality that would be hastened by his inaction in enforcement).
And as is often the case, this is another example of the difficulty of many, even those who should know better, to distinguish between the concept of “constitutional” and “law I agree with.” Roe v. Wade was a judicial travesty, regardless of one’s views on abortion, and we should demand consistency from the administration regardless of our views on gay marriage. The president is bound by his oath to enforce, and even defend, bad laws, but not unconstitutional ones.
Which brings us back to Elena Kagan’s confusion on this issue, and why she was a frightening appointment to SCOTUS. She has it exactly backwards. It would actually be good law to force people to purchase and eat their vegetables, at least in terms of the public health, but it would be a law both totalitarian and tyrannical. And unconstitutional.
More thoughts from Jonah Goldberg (here and here), Shannen Coffen (here and here), and David Bernstein.
[Update a few minutes later]
More at Cato.
Impaired Vision
Paul Spudis doesn’t think much of NASA’s newest vision statement. Neither do I, but I’m unmoved by his replacement: “To explore the universe with people and machines.”
He’s thinking too much like a scientist. Exploration is a means, not an end. I’d say “To flower the universe with sapient life.”
Yes, Marx Is Dead
But unfortunately, I disagree that the labor theory of value is. I wish that it were. It is, fundamentally, what the argument in Wisconsin (and really, the nation at large) is about. Isn’t, after all, one of the claims of the union workers that they deserve what they get because they work hard?
Individual Versus Collective Freedom
Jonah Goldberg has returned from his family tragedy to provide some thoughts.
The four strains of English culture that settled the Americas all had different conceptions of the meaning of the word “liberty,” and that tension between them remains very much at play in today’s politics.
Behind The Scenes
…of the Atlas Shrugged movie:
And an interview with the screenwriter and producer:
Libertarian Morality
Some interesting new research. I found this particularly salient:
Libertarians scored lower than both liberals and (especially) conservatives on sensitivity to disgust. The authors suggest this tendency “could help explain why they disagree with conservatives on so many social issues, particularly those related to sexuality. Libertarians may not experience the flash of revulsion that drives moral condemnation in many cases of victimless offenses.”
I’m not sure what they mean by “sensitivity to disgust.” If they mean that we don’t get disgusted, it doesn’t apply to me. But if they mean that, unlike some people, we don’t use it as the basis for morality, and especially for lawmaking, I think that’s right. I am quite repulsed by male homosex, but that doesn’t mean that I think that makes it immoral or subject to criminal sanctions, because I recognize that my reaction is a natural one for a heterosexual, and that many people are disgusted by different things. The fact that some are disgusted by the thought of eating bugs doesn’t make it immoral, and shouldn’t be, even to them.
The Biggest Threat To Humanity’s Future Existence
The Singularity? As he notes, it’s also the biggest opportunity.
In Search Of A Conservative Space Policy
With the quarter-century anniversary of the Challenger loss coming up next week, my thoughts on where we’ve been, and where we go from here. Even though I’m not really a conservative, I hope that the essay will make sense to them. Because unlike many, I at least speak the language, particularly when properly edited.
[Tuesday morning update]
I would note that there are two companion pieces to this, by Jeff Foust and Bob Zubrin.