However, Blatchford writes (or, on radio, speaks) her opinions on non-legal matters (e.g., matters of politics or culture) at times and, in that capacity, she is decidedly weak. Those of her opinions I have heard or read are of the Joe six-pack “it just seems to me” or “I feel” variety, rather than being the result of a applying any consistent and coherent set of philosophical principles to the facts of a matter.

That weakness did not stop her from flashing her press credentials to take an unwarranted swipe at unpaid blog writers who attended and reported upon G20 protests and who think that they deserved to be treated with the same dignity and respect as paid reporters. Indeed, that weakness, in the face of the relative quality of the opinion pieces being written by some bloggers about the G20 mess, may well have given her reason to take such a swipe. In her column last Saturday, which ran with the headline “Self-anointed G20 ‘journalists’ should get real”, she whined that:

…just as you are not a physician or a lawyer merely because you say you are, much as you may want to believe it so, neither are you a journalist because you and your friends say you are or because your “writings” appear on a website.
[...]
But let us not pretend that these [bloggers who attended and reported on the G20 protests] are working journalists or that they are the equivalent. They aren’t, for the most part.

Their work isn’t subject to editing or lawyering or the ethical code which binds, for example, the writers at The Globe. The websites on which they appear don’t belong, as do most reputable newspapers in this province, to the Ontario Press Council, a body which hears complaints against traditional journalists and publications.

Ah yes, the mournful call of the 21st century newspaper writer. With news aggregators and google news making editors neither necessary nor desirable, with blogging infrastructure available for free to all, and with opinions being like a**holes (“everyone’s got one”), paid writing gigs may soon be a thing of the past. Blatchford, still clinging to one such gig, apparently is left unable to resist including, in her self-admitted and obviously “random thoughts”, some snobby sour grapes about unpaid bloggers and vloggers.

It would have been fine for Blatchford to write that those who work for newspapers sometimes get access to places that others do not because such paid writers are, in a sense, pre-screened. Some stranger writing as “Raging Banana” is not someone who, by merely being a writer of a blog, should be trusted as much as Christie Blatchford not repeatedly to yell “No Justice No Peace” at a political party dinner function, or to snap photos of the athletes’ private bits at the end of a game in the locker room. And one is rather unlikely to take a violent run at a world leader at the G20 if one is writing for a national newspaper. If one is writing for a newspaper, one has little chance of remaining employed if one acts in such a fashion, and such an anti-wingnut check and balance does not burden the unpaid blogger.

However, to the detriment of the many fine bloggers who are not wingnuts, Blatchford instead made the argument that she and other paid writers are somehow a cut above those who do not get paid to write. One who is paid to write for the Globe and Mail, Blatchford implies, thereby gains the status of a journalist, even if one writes little more than insulting nonsense. Conversely, she advises, bloggers – no matter how good their work – are not journalists; they produce not writings, but mere “writings” (in quotations). As a writer of “opinion”, the declaration of such a ridiculous credentialist standard for being a journalist puts Blatchford’s own credibility into question.

A writer of opinion, to qualify as a journalist, should know that a thing is what it is regardless of whether it is recognized to be such by a law, a bureaucracy, a guild, or an association. Obviously, there were physicians before there were whole colleges comprised of physicians, and before said colleges issued official declarations that someone is a physician. There were lawyers long before there were law societies (try to imagine a society comprised of nobody) that issued licenses to exempt the licensees from punishment for daring to sell informed opinions about the law. Likewise, there were journalists before there were press councils and schools of journalism (unless nobody was ever qualified to be the first teacher of journalism, which would explain a lot).

Blatchford’s obviously self-serving swipe at bloggers and vloggers puts her firmly into the Wizard of Oz school of thought:

SCARECROW: You promised us real things — a real…brain!

WIZARD: Why, anybody can have a brain. That’s a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the earth — or slinks through slimy seas has a brain! From the rock-bound coast of Maine to the Sun…. oh – oh, no — – ah – Well, be that as it may. Back where I come from we have universities, seats of great learning — where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts — and with no more brains than you have…. But! They have one thing you haven’t got! A diploma!

Presented by the Wiz with a Th.D. in “thinkology”, the scarecrow proceeds to recite Pythagoras’ Theorem, as though the diploma gave him the ability to do so.

In my view, the quality of Blatchford’s opinion writing would not suffer were she no longer to work for a newspaper that was a member of a press council, were she not to have the teeth taken out of her writing by timid or partisan editors (assuming her writings sometimes are toothy), and were her diplomas (assuming she has at least one) somehow revoked by the institutions that issued them. However, if I am wrong, Blatchford is but a few scraps of paper, and one notice of dismissal, from singing along with the Scarecrow.

“All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights”

and

“…person means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency.”

On my read of these two passages, the bill deems a freshly fertilized human egg to be “born” and, more: to be “born free” and to have “inalienable rights” (just in case it should try, from within the womb, to waive those rights, I suppose).

The whole metaphysical monstrosity is an afront to rationality, and its ratification by the voting public could only happen in a kindergarten (which, I expect, Montana will be proven to be after the 2010 vote). So I have only one question:

When might I expect these unicellular freeloaders to get a haircut, get a real job, meet and marry a nice spouse, get a mortgage, have kids, and to start paying taxes like the rest of us allegedly “free” “persons”?

The article to which O’Neill links us points out that Montana is but one of seven states in which an organization called “Personhood USA” (the slogan of which is “Protecting Every Child by Love and by Law”) is trying to push through bills of this sort. He adds that there are no plans for Personhood USA to expand into Canada, and concludes “Pity.”

All of which has inspired the following story:

Dan pointed to a mouse, and said “I move that this is a cat. It’s a cat!” The motion was seconded. A majority voted in favour of the motion.

Never again was a mouse eaten by a cat.

The End.

I am pleased to write that the Toronto Star today published not only my letter to the editor, but another written by a fellow in Toronto, both of which explained that Greenspan’s ideology – in his role as head of the Fed – was not that of Ayn Rand. Best of all, the headline for those letters was:

There were an number of other articles under that heading that, though not referring to Rand, did explain that government intervention, not capitalism, was to blame for the credit crunch.

The editorial should never have been published, but I think the Star has played fair by publishing these letters.

I publish it here, fully expecting the Star not to publish it. I nonetheless encourage you to write a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star ( lettertoed@thestar.ca ) in response to its smearing of Ayn Rand and laissez faire capitalism.

Dear Editor:

Re: Twilight of the oracles (October 25, 2008 – Editorial)

Alan Greenspan’s primary role, as head of the federal reserve, was to regulate the rate at which the supply of American dollars grew. With Greenspan at the helm, the government intervened in the economy. That government intervention facilitated and encouraged easy credit, bad loans, and bankruptcies.

Such government intervention, together with the added intervention of bailing-out banks with taxpayer earnings, is all contrary to the laissez-faire capitalism that Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged, impressed upon Greenspan in his youth.

Condemning Greenspan and government intervention for the hardship now being felt by many is fair game. Condemning Ayn Rand and anti-interventionist admonitions is not. Were she alive today, her words would be “I told you so“.

Paul McKeever
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario
Author and Host of the Defending Ayn Rand video series on YouTube.com/paulmckeever

Metaphysics: The Nominees’ Views on the Nature of Reality

Republican nominee John McCain referred to “god” eight times during his speech, out-godifying Obama, who referred to “god” just twice, 4 to 1.

Whereas Senator McCain closed with the words: “Thank you, and God bless you, and God bless America”, Senator Obama took the diametrically opposed position on the facts of reality with his contra McCainian use of periods instead of commas: “Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.”

Another stark contrast can be drawn with respect to the issue of who we all are. According to McCain, “We’re all God’s children, and we’re all Americans.” Not so, says Pennsylvania’s former deputy attorney general (and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter) Philip J. Berg, who yesterday served Obama and the Democratic party with a lawsuit alleging Obama lied about being a US citizen, and challenging his eligibility to be president.

Epistemology: The Nominees’ Views on Obtaining Knowledge

McCain referred to “faith” three times, including one reference to Americans having “faith in the wisdom, justice, and goodness of its people.” He referred to reason twice:

“For reasons known only to God, I’ve had quite a few tough ones in my life.”

and

“I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank him, that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on Earth.”

For McCain, we should have faith in others’ reason, and reasons for faith in god. In short: we should have faith in the reasons for having faith in God. Shorter still: we should have faith, but reason is superfluous.

Here, Obama’s message is clearly different. Although he used the word “reason” only once, he made his hallowed respect for it clear: “The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great, a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.” Now, sure, the sentence isn’t entirely intelligible, but we can at least gather that, when it comes to getting a presidential nomination, reason, for Obama, is indispensible.

Moreover, Obama did not use the word “faith” even once. Taking the polar opposite view to McCain, he said “Let us keep that promise, that American promise, and in the words of scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.” His reference was to Hebrews 10:23: “Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful”. So, for Obama, one does not need faith: one only needs hope, because we can just rely on Jesus to have enough faith for everyone.

To sum up Obama’s epistemology: one needs only to hope for a promise that is a reason…er, something like that. But faith has nothing to do with it, so he is definitely different than McCain when it comes to his epistemology.

Ethics: The Nominees’ Views on What One Ought to Do

McCain condemned the “me-first, country-second crowd”. He said he intends to honour the Stanley family for their sacrifice of their son. He told a touching tale of how he used to to do things “for [his] own pleasure; [his] own pride”, and how he “…didn’t think there was a cause more important than” himself. He explained that, thereafter, he discovered “the limits of [his] selfish independence”, learned that “no man can always stand alone”, and found that “nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself”. In short: it is right to sacrifice others, it is right to sacrifice oneself, and sacrifice will make you happy. Shorter still: dying makes one happiest of all.

Obama carved a path in the opposite direction, not referring to “sacrifice” at all. Instead, he explained, the “promise of America” is “the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper.” Obama explained that that promise “…has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west…”.

The difference is astounding. Whereas McCain says it’s right to sacrifice of oneself, Obama says it is right to move where you will be kept by others.

Politics: The Nominees’ Views on the Government’s Use of Force

Implicitly referring to Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, McCain asserted that “We’re dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights.” He added that: “education is the civil rights issue of this century”, praising the gain of the civil right of universal access to public schools.

Obama did not use the word “rights” in his speech, but he did say that government should “provide every child a decent education”, that “Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education”, that he’ll “invest in early childhood education”, and “make sure you can afford a college education”.

The difference is clear: McCain believes you have a right to a tax-funded education, whereas Obama’s promise of a tax-funded education is not founded upon rights. More succinctly: McCain asserts that you have a right to other peoples’ money, whereas Obama regards other peoples’ money as something that the government can give to you if it chooses to do so.

Summary

To sum up, McCain and Obama are miles apart on what counts: philosophy. McCain is the more goddy American child of god, whereas Obama is alleged to be the periodically goddy child of Kenya…or Indonesia, or someplace. McCain has faith, whereas Obama has hope in a promise for reason in a guy who has faith (er, something like that). McCain puts himself second, whereas, in stark contrast, Obama puts others first. McCain says you have a right to tell the government to take tuition money from others, whereas Obama says you do not need such a right because he is already more eager than McCain to take that money, and more.

The media will, no doubt, spend the next two months telling you how diametrically opposed these two candidates are; how they have two dramatically different visions for America; how your vote will make a huge difference in respect of the course of America’s future. As the above comparison shows, the media will not be misleading you one bit.

Over the course of the program, I contrasted rational individuals of high self-esteem with irrational individuals of low-self esteem. Many incompetent individuals, with low self-esteem, implicitly or explicitly adopt a belief about the nature of happiness which is very different from the belief held by competent, high self-esteem individuals. Happiness, to the incompetent, is merely zero sadness; numbness; zero emotion. In contrast, to the competent, happiness is an above-zero emotion, resulting from the achievement of rational values.

I proceed to discuss how the incompetent adopt philosophical beliefs which are designed not to help them identify and act in accordance with the facts of reality, but that serve the purpose of convincing themselves or others that it is not possible to identify and act in accordance with the facts of reality. Such beliefs are intended to have the effect of providing self-esteem without that which makes it possible: achievement. However, in practice, such a self-deceptive philosophy is destructive of the self and of others. It amounts, in the end, to a death cult of zero-worship, which regards those who achieve values as the wasteful and the evil, and which regards sacrifice – by oneself, but especially by rational, productive, achievers – as that which must be achieved by any means necessary.

The one hour program was video-taped. I’ve edited-in some visual content which provides some useful evidence and context. The result is broken into a two-part video (you can watch each part below). Enjoy.