Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Thoughts on Election


To me, this presidential election has represented dismal choices or lack of them. As the campaign wore on, Obama has tried in slick fashion to position himself as "mainstream" on issues such as gun control, terrorism, etc. This is despite the contradictions with his previous pronouncements, which had always been hard core "leftist." However, McCain has offered no meaningful difference from Obama. Now, his last ditch ads try to present him as an advocate of lower taxes and spending. This is despite that he, along with Obama, supported the incredible $700 billion bailout. He missed a golden opportunity to zero in on the bad accounting that contributed to a considerable extent, and, maybe even to a primary extent, to the current economic crisis. Also, McCain seems to support the same environmentalist proposals that would go a long way to shutting down American industry forever.

To be sure, McCain and his running mate have suffered from a disgraceful media distortion and bias. However, when I have heard some of his positions, my emotional reaction was that he "deserves" it.

The only possible reason for voting for McCain is terrorist concern. Obama's previous statements on foreign policy seem to express a very dangerous worldview and a feeling of moral neutrality between the US and terrorist, theocratic regimes. McCain's previous military and war record seem to give him (although, even here, we can't be sure) a likelihood of standing up to the thugs around the world.


Norman E. Hill



Monday, September 1, 2008

Movie Review - "Tell No One"

The French mystery thriller "Tell No One" keeps you on the edge of your seat-and your brain. Its integrated, intricate plot demands the utmost concentration for keeping up with a host of twists and turns. All mysteries are cleared up and resolved at the end, when the protagonist finally figures out what actually happened to his murdered wife some years before.

"Tell No One" has its share of evil participants, both actual criminals and law enforcement personnel completely corrupted. Villains are not raging psychos, but usually low-key wretches who describe their deeds and intentions matter-of-factly. In the same way, fanatical parental love is presented as a means for complicating matters further.

A complex movie like this easily calls for a second viewing to study its lines, body language, and subtleties again. Such a repeat showing should be just as enjoyable as the first.

Norman E. Hill
NoraLyn Ltd
Books By Hills

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Success Express

This is to let those interested in discovering what's inside the Winner and Final Chairman know, Friday, August 22, I will be interviewed on the Success Express radio program. I hope you'll be able to tune in. My interview will start at 11:45 a.m. and last around 20 minutes.

Norman E. Hill
Books By Hills
NoraLyn Ltd.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Ethics, My Understanding of Objectivism

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

How Moral is Capitalism?




This is to answer Rich Karlgaard's February 12 article in Forbes.

Yes, the purer the capitalism, the more prosperous AND more moral the society. As Ayn Rand has pointed out, her ethical code supporting capitalism is not dependent on "outside moral influences" or "religious values"(Ten Commandments or Sermon on the Mount). A pure capitalist system with Rand's ethics will not deteriorate to the "inhumane, cutthroat" society mentioned. In fact, the redistributionists' main nonsecular supports are the Sermon on the Mount and the numerous antiwealth references in Scripture.

In briefest form, man absolutely depends on his mind for survival, long range planning, and trading and dealing with other men. If he acts unethically, he damages and endangers his mind's functioning and thus endangers his survival. ONLY by acting ethically can he serve his rational self interest and protect himself on a long range basis.

Widespread understanding of this ethical approach cannot come overnight, due to centuries of philosophical corruption. Rand has the philosophical system, including ethics, in place to bring this change about.

One cannot truly defend capitalism against its implacable enemies without realization that pure capitalism is moral and therefore is incompatible with altruism or mysticism.

Norman E. Hill
Norm's Thoughts Blog
Winner and Final Chairman
BooksByHills
NoraLyn LTD

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Attempt to Decipher Kant


Man gets knowledge from integrating. By perception, he starts with observing the existents all around him. He keeps them in mental grasp by conceptualizing i.e. by omitting the particular measurements of existents and grasping their common denominators. This process of integrating is how man acquires knowledge of and control over reality.

Kant also starts with existents and perception and forms an exceedingly complex conceptual chain supposedly applied to grasp and integrate the existents. He concludes that:

1. The existents he "grasps" are not those of true reality, i.e. of the noumenal world.

2. His observation of existents is from his sensing faculties that are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Therefore, his observation is in principle distorted and, even if it was not, is not observation of true reality, i.e.the noumenal world.

3. His conceptual process and faculty are finite, neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and therefore could not mentally grasp the existents around him, even if they did represent true reality, ie the noumenal world. Therefore, his conceptual faculty is useless.

4. Therefore, in principle, man cannot grasp true reality.

Kant forms this conclusion about an unknowable reality by starting with reality and asserting he "knows" points #1 through #4 above. He accepts and uses the human process to grasp reality to form his conclusion that man in principle cannot grasp reality.

Norman E. Hill
NoraLyn Ltd.
Books By Hills

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Causes of the Civil War, So Many Fightling So Fiercely for So Little


From first to last, the cause of the civil war was slavery. More specifically, the cause was the desire of a minority of slave-owners, slave traders, cotton brokers, etc, to perpetuate and expand slavery across the US. This minority controlled a disproportionate share of the wealth in the South. There was no established middle class, unlike the situation in the North.

Also, this minority controlled the politics in the South. Newspapers did not publish a variety of views. The majority of the population was illiterate. Abolitionists or suspected abolitionists were often threatened, beaten or killed. In the presidential elections of 1856 and 1860, antislavery candidates were not even listed on the ballots in 10 southern slave states.

In the 1830s, John Calhoun of South Carolina advocated the right of states to nullify federal laws or regulations to which they objected. Although this view was precluded by strong words from Andrew Jackson, it became more and more popular after Jackson. It was expanded to mean the right of states to secede from the Union if they objected to any of the above federal edicts, including any on slavery.

Since there were fewer cities than in the North and fewer available farm land not already taken by large plantations, there was little opportunity for a growing middle class. Cultivation of cotton wore out the land and caused constant need for fresh soil. The great majority of Southern whites did not own slaves. They farmed, usually on a subsistence basis. They could only thank God they were born white. They were very vulnerable to racist rabble rousing cries of "Keep the niggers in their place." Since they often had to hunt to augment food supplies, their numerous rifles and shooting skills were to prove significant later on.

Novels that opposed slavery like Uncle Tom's Cabin, or exposed the inherent weakness of the slave-based economic system, were strictly suppressed in the South and hardly read there at all.

The South was able to control US politics for a considerable number of years. In the Senate, with each state having 2 senators, the slave states held disproportionate power. With only 5 million white population versus a Northern population that grew to 14 million, the slave-owners had considerable power.

President Andrew Jackson was a slaveholder, but, as mentioned above, shot down any attempts at South nullification. However, succeeding presidents were very willing to do slaveholder bidding:

1. Martin VanBuren: Although a northerner, he tried to interfere with legal proceedings in the Amisted case, so that escaped foreign slaves could have been deemed property to be returned.

2. John Tyler of Virginia: Took over the Presidency upon the death of Harrison.

3. James Polk of Tennessee: Helped inflame public opinion to start the Mexican War and take over much territory that might have been potential slave states.

4. Zachary Taylor: A slave-owner, although a very brief reign.

5. Franklin Pierce: A northerner, but his Ostend Manifesto threatened Spain with war unless it ceded Cuba to the US(another slave territory.

6. James Buchanan: Arguably, one of our worst Presidents-a Northerner, he defended slave-owner thuggery in trying to force Kansas as a slave state against the majority of its residents. Despite urgent pleas by the war hero, patriot, and Army head, General Winfield Scott, he prevented him from sending troops to guard US garrisons, arsenals, and valuable ammunition in the South.

Stephen Douglas was a leader of the Democratic Party who wished to be President. To curry favor among the slave-owners, he forced through the Kansas Nebraska Bill in 1854. It repealed the Missouri Compromise and stated that inhabitants of any designated portion of this vast territorial area should decide by majority rule whether to be a slave or free state. However, slave-owners promptly decided to make Kansas a slave state by force. The soil of the state was unsuited to cotton, sugar or rice cultivation. Nonetheless, by sending in bands of thugs, a proslavery constitution was set up.

Douglas was angry at this distortion of his Bill. Over Buchanan's threats, he refused to sanction the fraudulent Kansas constitution for statehood. Also, in the Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858, he replied that, yes, in principle, citizens of a territory could vote to exclude slavery. Finally, in 1860, in preparation for the Democratic presidential convention, he denounced movements he detected to advocate renewal of the African slave trade.

All these examples of integrity on Douglas' part cost him support of the slave-owners. Although in the majority nationwide, the Democratic Party became hopelessly divided for the 1860 election. Douglas was thus denied the Presidency he so wanted.

Earlier, Southerners were defensive about slavery. However, as their economy more and more depended on slavery, they became ever more belligerent advocates of the institution. As the economy of the North passed up the South in wealth, resentment grew. Arguments were often couched in misleading terms of "states rights." Even later, during the war, when the Confederate cause was obviously lost, Jefferson Davis wrote "The fight will continue until the last of this generation dies in its tracks, until you acknowledge our right to self government." However, the underlying issue was clear, not states rights, and not self government. Statements like the infamous one from Alexander Stephens (paraphrase) identified the heart of the matter, "The Negro is inherently inferior to the white man, slavery is his natural condition. We are committed to this great moral and political truth."

Some have advocated that the North was equally culpable in the slavery institution. After all, Northern bankers had loaned $200 million to slave-owners, who were perpetually in debt. Supposedly, northern factory workers were worse off than slaves. However, factory workers could strike or change jobs to better themselves.

There was no underground railroad to transport Northern workers down south to slavery conditions. Obviously, the existence of an underground railroad enraged the slave-owners, although relatively few slaves out of the 4 million got away through it.

Robert Rhett and William Yancey were the two Southern spokesmen who carried the slavery question to a "logical" extension. Rhett advocated secession for his South and revival of the African slave trade-all on moral grounds. Also, the cost of slaves had increased sharply, up to $2000 for a prime field hand. Thus, increasing the supply in this manner would supposedly help the Southern economy (something like "a slave in every pot").

The Republican Party started in the early 1850s. Its platform was not abolitionism, but restricting slavery to its current states. There would be no extension to the territories or overseas military adventures to conquer Caribbean or other tropical lands for new slave states. Slavery could remain intact in existing slave states, although there was a hope that, this way, it would gradually become extinct. Yet, the slave-owners constantly distorted their views. "Black Republicans" became an epithet. Southern newspapers and, even more so, regional spokesmen and clergymen, constantly talked about the need to protect one’s property and loved ones from the massacres and rapes that would occur once Republicans freed the slaves and hurled them on the white population. Poor whites were often whipped up to frenzies.

Southern newspapers fanned the flames of war. Before the election of 1860, they warned that election of a Republican president would be a declaration of war. In Lincoln’s presidential inaugural speech, he ended with "I am loath to close. We are not enemies but friends. We must not be enemies." Nonetheless, these same publications referred to his speech as a declaration of war.

During the Civil War, the Confederate army was primarily made up of non-slave-owners. These men could not afford to own slaves. To win foreign support, the Confederate government had reaffirmed the banning of the African slave trade.

Therefore, these troops had no prospects of owning slaves. Further, they had no prospects of greater political participation. Yet, these men fought bravely and ferociously for the Confederacy. Before the battle of Gettysburg, the eastern portion of the Confederate army won almost all battles decisively. After Gettysburg, although badly outnumbered, they held off Grant’s forces for nearly two years. Only towards the end in 1865, when Lee's army faced starvation, were there significant desertions by Confederate troops.

Even into the 20th century, Southern spokesmen distorted the causes of the Civil War. A prime example is the author, Margaret Mitchell. In Gone with the Wind, she spoke longingly for the pre-Civil War days in the South. Supposedly, every white lived on large populations like Tara. Slaves lovingly and submissively took care of their white superiors. Northerners were recruited for brutish positions like slave overseers. She constantly referred to Negroes as creatures of inferior intelligence and worth. The Northern invasion put an end to this idyllic existence.

In summary, we can refer to ancillary causes of the Civil War, such as tariffs, jealousy, etc. However, the one root cause was the 4 million people held in bondage, and the desire of an entrenched minority to keep it that way.

Norman E. Hill
www.noralyn.com
Books By Hills

Monday, May 12, 2008

Views on Women


Men and women are morally and intellectually equal. There are obvious physical differences between the sexes in terms of size and strength. Likewise, there are psychological differences, due to sexual roles, childbearing, etc. However, the point is both men and women survive on earth primarily by their minds i.e. their rational faculty.

In cultures, there is a direct correlation between the culture’s quality of life, including general prosperity, political freedom, and the status of women. The abject poverty, political tyrannies, and general miserable conditions and attitudes in the Islamic world and Africa go hand in glove with the miserable status of women, including beatings, forced marriages, “honor killings”, genital mutilations, foot binding, etc. At the same time, the prosperity and general quality of life in the Western world, especially the United States, correlate with the infinitely higher status of women.

Norman E. Hill
www.noralyn.com

Saturday, May 3, 2008

War Crimes

The concept war crimes is a very dangerous one, contrary to the U.S. Constitution and American legal codes. It is a non-objective, undefined term, and can be used by anyone to condemn and prosecute anyone he chooses.

Trials for war crimes arose against the Nazis and Japanese after World War II. There was no question that the leaders of these two governments were responsible for many atrocities and deserved to be tried as criminals. However, any moral force of the Nuremberg war crimes trials against the Nazis was doomed from the start. One of the trying nations was Soviet Russia-whose government was responsible for even more murders and atrocities against its citizens than the Nazis had committed.

Today, with this fatal precedent for war crimes, we see demands for war crimes arrests and trials against a country like Israel. This nation has been under attack for almost 60 years, through devices such as suicide bombers and terrorists who knowingly use innocent (relatively) women and children as shields. Then, when Israeli attacks against the terrorists result in deaths of women and children, wails and moans of unjustified homicide and war crimes are heard. Even officials of the U.S., such as Bush and Rumsfeld, have been accused to some extent of committing war crimes in Iraq. Our jailing of enemy terrorists in the Guantanamo prison has sometimes been alleged as an incident of war crimes.

Of course, we should not forget Hanoi Jane Fonda. In the late 1960s, her well-publicized characterization of U.S. airmen, doing their job of bombing enemy combatants, as war criminals, gave great comfort to our enemy, the North Vietnamese.

After World War II, there was a rational way, consistent with U.S. and Western criminal codes, for trying Nazis and Japanese. Japanese leaders, all the way up through Hirohito, had been responsible for atrocities against American prisoners of war. Similar accusations of murder could have been brought by British, Australian, and Nationalist Chinese leaders.

With the Nazis, the situation is a little more complicated. French authorities, for example, could have brought charges against Nazis for atrocities against Resistance and underground leaders. Similar charges could have been brought by other countries occupied by Nazis, such as Austria, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, The Netherlands, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Two other countries who suffered greatly at Nazi hands were Poland and the Soviet Union. However, by the time of Nuremberg, Poland was already in Soviet hands. Since Soviet Union had its own barbarous government, this fact should have morally disqualified both countries from participating in any trials against Nazis.

The British suffered from indiscriminate Nazi bombing against civilians during the Blitz. This would have qualified them from participating in murder trials against Nazis.

Israel as a nation did not exist until 1948. When people thus became Israeli citizens, they could make a strong case that Nazis surviving at that time had murdered millions of people who would have become Israeli citizens if they had been allowed to emigrate.

The U.S. situation is a little more complicated. I am not aware of U.S. citizens who were murdered by Nazis, except for a few captured airmen. The latter would have justified trials at least against local SS instigators, although possibly against Nazi higher ups as well.

Many U.S. citizens of Jewish ancestry lost close relatives during the Nazi holocaust. Unfortunately, the latter were not American citizens. Even so, the argument can be made that many Jews who were later massacred had petitioned the U.S. government for asylum. These requests during the early 1940s were shamefully denied by that great “humanitarian”, Franklin Roosevelt. It might represent a stretch, but a good argument could be made that the Nazis thus murdered many would-be U.S.citizens.

Through the above arguments, many nations could have and should have brought criminal charges against Nazi and Japanese leaders. Both mass murder, rape and torture were all legitimate charges under legal codes of most of these nations, especially the U.S

Later on, the U.S. could have brought criminal charges against North Korea and North Vietnam for atrocities against American prisoners of war. Similar murder charges can be brought against any terrorists who were complicit in the 9 11 attacks. Enemy combatants captured in Iraq, Afghanistan (or even the 1982 Lebanese bombing of our Marines) can legitimately be held indefinitely as prisoners of war.

Under this approach, the U.S. does not seem able to bring criminal charges against Serbs, Somalis, Arab Sudanese, or Hutus for their atrocities. However, if it is determined to be in our nation’s self interest, we could certainly attack these groups, to whatever degree seems appropriate.

In summary, the concept of war crimes itself should be condemned by the U.S. and should never be the basis for trying anyone, no matter how despicable he is

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Thoughts on Charlie Wilson's War and the Cold War in General

General Review

First, as a movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Hanks and Hoffman, in particular, gave outstanding performances. Their real life counterparts deserve credit for working hard and, on a required behind the scenes basis, to start a counteroffensive against the Communist thugs.

Some broad implications can and already have been drawn from the movie. To do these justice, some moral points and historical analysis are both necessary.

Primary Moral Point

The forthright, honorable US approach in Afghanistan would have been our open, direct military aid (no troops, except possibly some advisors) to the rebels. Of course, this would have "provoked" the Soviets. But, it would have been a welcome contrast to the convoluted, clandestine way in which arms were shipped to the Afghans. Apparently, there was some sucking up to the Saudis, to enlist their cooperation with the Israelis.

The Soviets were completely open about their overthrow of the existing government and invasion. They were equally open about using Castro's troops for Angola and other military operations. If our government was morally armed, there would have been no qualms about direct US military aid, which would have been in our self interest.

Other Moral Points

Once the Soviets pulled out of the country, it was also in our interest to push for formation of a pro US government. It may have been an autocratic one, since, before the Communist invasion, a monarchy was in place. This type of government could have been acceptable to us, as long as it did not seek overthrows of other governments.

Therefore, some limited aid to Afghanistan, to help it rebuild, would have been in our self interest. The political alternative was not the Soviets or the Taliban.

If the US turned its back on the country, as the movie claims, it was a mistake.

Historical Analysis

By any measure, the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, while important and morally uplifting, could not possibly have caused the fall of the Berlin wall, the freeing of the satellite nations of Europe, or the apparent implosion of the Soviet government over to the Yeltsin regime. Other causes had to have played a role.

In many quarters today, Reagan is given credit for ending the Cold War. Supposedly, he forced the Soviets into a competitive military buildup with us for which they lacked the funds to sustain. By trying to keep up with the US, they supposedly bankrupted themselves and their government with all its totalitarian apparatus collapsed.

This arms race probably played a role here, more than Afghanistan. However, in an arms race, supposedly, the Soviets and their satellites would rely on their own factories (plus whatever technology they could steal from the West). If the goal was to produce more or to divert more workers from, say, agriculture, the government could have done so by force. Since workers in the Soviet Union were apparently paid some wages, the government could print more money, if gold funds were short. Even with the low Soviet standard of living, unless the population was starving, the KGB seemed able to enforce order for some years.

In short, I believe still other factors had to have played a role in the Soviet implosion. The country had a sizable nuclear arsenal, albeit probably not as much as reported (while the US media positively relished stories about the Soviet’s achieving nuclear superiority over us, I always had considerable skepticism about this). One possibility is that, somehow, their delivery system ie the apparatus for loading and firing all their ballistic nuclear-armed missiles could have been dismantled or thrown off kilter. Maybe, for once, the CIA pulled off an espionage coup. We’ll probably never know.

My point is Reagan may not deserve much credit here. Alternatively, he may deserve credit in a way not publicized that served to overthrow the Soviet regime.

When Reagan took office in 1980, he inherited the Carter mess. No doubt, he was concentrating on an overall US arms buildup. Even so, he had to have known about the military aid program, already underway, for the Afghan rebels. He could have killed it if he chose. Much more likely, he gave it his support.

It would be interesting to see what the mind of Congress was at this point. Since it was so committed to US preclusion from aiding anti-Ortega forces in Nicaragua, Congress probably would not have wanted to go “overboard” in allowing an anti-Communist pro US alternative in Afghanistan.

Liberals, of course, would like to reap the credit for winning the Cold War and for Reagan to receive absolutely no credit. As long as the limited scope of the Afghanistan victory is understood, this movie won’t do it for them.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

William Buckley-A Critique

Recent accolades heaped on William Buckley, at the time of his death, provide grim confirmation of the adage: A bad argument FOR something is much, much worse than a direct attack on the something. It provides antagonists of the something with the mistaken notion that they possess the high moral/intellectual ground in their attacks on the something.

In this case, the something, of course, the victim of the bad argument from William Buckley, is capitalism. Buckley is considered by many as the intellectual spokesman, if not for capitalism, then for its alleged equivalent, conservatism. Actually, Buckley never claimed that he was defending capitalism. In his Wall Street Journal piece, "To Preserve What We Have", and elsewhere, he merely called for stopping at the current point of welfare state expansion and going no further. At each point he would say that this political apparatus, the welfare state, should expand no further. From the next point, and the next, he'd cry stop-no more expansion. Many who call themselves conservatives hold this position, which is completely futile. The welfare state, by its nature, must expand, and keep restricting freedom-if there is no philosophical opposition.

Several times, Buckley did call for protection of freedom, which, in the sense of individual rights, goes hand in hand with laissez faire capitalism. But, he never came close to answering: What ethical code supports individual rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and capitalism; what is the nature of man and human knowledge that in turn supports this ethical code; and what is the fundamental nature of reality that supports all the above portions that depend on it? No one can really be a proponent of individual rights and capitalism without articulating a philosophy of: Ethics-rational self interest; epistemology-reason and logic; and metaphysics-objective reality.

To the extent Buckley offered any defense of freedom or capitalism, it was based on religious faith, which really means-on altruism, sacrificing oneself for others. This lethal combination is completely incompatible with capitalism. Many of capitalism's alleged defenders are silent on this contradiction, but Buckley fully advocated it-to the extent he advocated any position-as his basis for freedom.

The most disgraceful and inconsistent aspect of his posturing as a defender of freedom lay in Buckley's militant stand against abortion-a woman's right to choose and to her own body. He fully advocated the dark religious superstition that life begins at conception, rather than the scientific position that human life, unlike the preliminary parasitical fetus, begins at birth or its equivalent. No defender of individual rights could advocate forcing women into lives of unwanted pregnancies.

Buckley could employ a wide variety of words, many not widely used. He could utter many witty, sarcastic, snide comments, usually without context or as part of a complete position. This ability is not enough to classify him as an intellectual or a defender of capitalism or individual freedom, much less as a defender of any consistent political or philosophical position.

Norman E. Hill
www.noralyn.com