the salt makers

Libertarians hate two things: coercion, and breakfast. I'm going to concentrate on the coercion part. It seems to me that the hatred of coercion--embodied in the non-aggression axiom--is not really a reasonable thing, so I'm not going to argue it as a logician. I think it's the same as the hatred most people have for bullies, thieves, and murderers. We have been taught to hate coercion, and libertarians are cursed with a reasoning that most people lack. Libertarians see the logical connection between coercion and things like taxes, laws, and all the rest.

Here's a good way to explain.

I remember in a philosophy class, we read some Nozick. Nozick claimed that taxation was slavery. His reasoning was this. A man is a slave even if he is free for half of every year. Further, that man is still a slave even if he does not work the fields; for instance, if he works a desk job of his choice, and according to his abilities. Further, that man is still a slave if, instead of spending half his time in bondage and half free, he simply gives up half the fruits of his labor to his masters every year. Thus, a man is a slave if his government takes a portion of the fruits of his labor, for in doing so they take half his labor, and in doing that, they become his master.

My classmates were aghast. How stupid this Nozick person must be, to compare taxation to slavery. He was so wrong, in fact, that my classmates decided they would not think about his argument or bother to rebut. Instead they simply said, "that's stupid" or "he's wrong." I tried to explain to them that his reasoning was valid, but they would hear none of it.

This, I think, is where libertarians see themselves. They feel much as I did in the classroom that day. They are surrounded by people who are in a world of particulars, people who cannot even conceive that the things they like can somehow be extensions of a thing they hate.

But here is where libertarians falter. They take, as an assumption, that aggression, slavery, and theft are bad. They connect the dots and conclude that governments, laws, and taxation are usually just disguised versions of the first three things.

Now, my position is two-fold. First, I assert that aggression, slavery, and theft are not evil in essence. Second, I charge libertarians with using what I call "the modern syllogism." The modern syllogism is
I don't like X
Thus X is bad
Contrast this with the ancient syllogism, which is
We agree that Z is bad
X is inseparable from Z
Thus X is bad
Libertarians think that they use the ancient syllogism. They think that one can plug in aggression, slavery, and theft into Z, and show that government, laws, and taxation (X) are bad. But if my first assertion is correct, it is not appropriate to do so. The ancient syllogism collapses into the modern syllogism.

Consider, first of all, that most Americans hate slavery because we learn to hate slavery at a young age. We learn the history of American slavery, and all the brutality and dehumanization that this entails. But there have been other forms of slavery. There was Japanese slavery, in which a slave could attain positions of power well above a freed man. There was slavery in the Iroquois confederacy, in which captured warriors had to work as slaves for a specified amount of time, and then were freed. But most of us do not learn about this until later in life. By the time we do, the moral concept of slavery has been fully formed on our minds. We cannot conceive that some examples of slavery are completely evil, some are much less evil, and some are actually good.

It seems to me that the most brutal examples of slavery (colonial Spain in South America, Sparta, deep south America, Azteca) are purely evil. There are other examples (Persian empire, Japan, African tribes) that are still evil, but not as bad. In situations like the Iroquois confederacy, the system of slavery provided a more humane way to engage in war. Instead of putting whole cities to the sword, or killing all the men and raping all the women, one could take the prisoners and put them to work. In this case, the morality of slavery is debatable. In situations like modern day America, slavery (taxation) is very useful. It lets us maintain roads, schools, and the police force.

Now, I am not trying to convince you that Iroquois slavery is, on the whole, good. And I certainly am not making the case that modern day American taxation is a perfect system. However, if you believe that all the examples I gave above are truly examples of slavery, then you cannot use the idea that slavery is evil as a premise. A premise such as "slavery is evil" requires that we all know unequivically that every example of slavery is evil. Well, I for one do not know that. Thus, I cannot accept your premise.

As for aggression or thievery, I can make those cases much more easily.

We all know it is wrong to aggress against a woman, or a child or the elderly. However, it is much less wrong to aggress against someone who spreads vicious rumors about your family. It is not wrong at all to aggress against someone stands by idly while his friend beats a woman, child, or elder. I assume that you will disagree with my ordering here. That's fine; it is not my intent to convince you. It is my intent to show that you cannot take non-aggression as a premise. A premise must be incontrovertible. There has to be more substance to it than just "I don't like it."

Thievery is easiest of all. I have said in an earlier email that there is debate over the very notion of property. Logically then, there must be debate over the notion of thievery. Since there is debate, some examples of thievery are agreed upon by all (Nazi repossession of Jewish goods), some are agreed upon by only some (taxation), and some are agreed upon by very few (ecologists who claim that clearcutting a forest is thievery against future generations). Even if we assume--very dubiously--that everyone has a common concept of property, there are many examples of a noble thief, such as Robin Hood, or Pierce Brosnan in that movie about the art thief, or Brad Pitt and George Clooney in that movie about the casino.

Since there is disagreement on your premises, you cannot simply expound them as premises. Correction: you can, but then you are using the modern syllogism. You do not like X, Y, and Z. Thus, X, Y, and Z are bad.


Nick, I asked you if it was appropriate to break the libertarian axioms in order to prevent a much larger enfringement of rights. Example: stealing someone's boat to save a drowning stranger. You said,
" The axioms are absolute as the definition of the word
implies. Though we may sympathize which the victim, he has
no right to violate our rights."

This is a confusing position. It seems to me that if it is bad when one person has their rights violated, it is twice as bad when two people have their rights similarly violated. It is three times as bad for three people, and ten times as bad for ten people. I do not understand how you can justify a 10x rights violation by saying the only way to prevent it is to commit a single rights violation. That does not seem like much of a justification at all.

You claim that it has something to do with the word "axiomatic." This is equally puzzling to me. It is an axiom in business that you do not want to lose dollars. Put another way, you always want to gain dollars. This certainly does not imply that you can never spend dollars. If you have to spend money to ultimately gain money, then you do so. This does not somewhow refute the notion that gaining money is an axiom.

It is an axiom in science that things want to reach a state of lowest potential energy. Thus, when rain falls, it flows to the lowest possible ground where its gravitational potential energy is at a minimum. However, when volcanoes erupt, they spew lava into the air, and the lava briefly has a higher potential energy. The fact that "lowest potential energy" is an axiom does not imply that it cannot be violated for greater benefit later.

In fact, axioms usually imply the reverse. If something is axiomatic, then it is a "greater good" from which we derive specific goods. It is not the kind of good that we must quixotically obey at all moments in time. It is the kind of good that we ought to maximize in total. Thus in war, we try to minimize overall troop losses (axiom), even if it means losing more troops during a certain battle.

Now, if you really want, you are free to construct a moral system in which it is always wrong to coerce, not matter how many others will be coerced in service of your end. However, there ought to be a good reason for this. It is not sufficient to say "coercion is wrong." If coercion is wrong, it is encumbant upon us to prevent as much coercion as we possibly can.

You can make the famous case that "Violence begets violence. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." And so on. In this way, you can invoke the greater good, and say it is best served when we tend only to ourselves. But this is more rhetoric than reason. If a man is drowning, and I steal someone's boat to go save him, I am not encouraging theft. If a man is about to blow up a building, and I shoot an innocent to get to him, I do not think that I'm increasing violence in the world. Put another way, if I failed to act, I cannot believe that I somehow made the world a better place.


Let me try to frame the argument in another way. As I stated in a previous email, libertarians have to believe that there is an essential difference between action and inaction. If they do not believe this, then the whole system collapses, as all obligations and rights in the libertarian scheme are negative. They are obligations of inaction, and rights demanding inaction.

But is there an essential difference between action and inaction? To examine this proposition, I have, for your enjoyment, seven thought experiments.

Thought experiment one. A mad scientist has put you in a room with four people, sitting on chairs of four colors, red blue yellow black. In front of you is a panel with four buttons, red blue yellow black. The mad scientist tells you over the intercom, "Push the button and that person will be disintegrated on the spot. You have two minutes. If you don't push any button, then all of them die!" He cackles. The mad scientist is Ethan.

Under the libertarian scheme of things, there is an essential difference between action and inaction. Thus, if you stand still and do nothing, you cannot be held accountable. Under the libertarian scheme, if you press a button, then you and mad scientist are equally responsible for the poor soul who got vaporized. If you do nothing, then the mad scientist alone is responsible for all four deaths. So according to justice, you ought to let all four of them die. This might seem to be an absurdity to most people, but it is consistent I suppose.

Thought experiment two. It is three months later. The mad scientist has put you in an identical room with four new people. You wonder, "How did I let that damn scientist drug me again?" But before you can finish that thought, his voice comes on the loudspeaker. "You can save three of the people by pushing their corresponding buttons. Only three! The unlucky fourth person will get disintegrated. Now go!" He cackles.

Under the libertarian scheme of things, you are safe. No matter what you do, you aren't guilty of murder. This seems very strange considering the difference between this situation and the last is highly trivial. In this situation you press three buttons instead of one. Other than that, the situations are the same. So we arrive at another absurdity, this one more apparent than the last.

Thought experiment three. Three months have passed. The mad scientist got you again. You swear profusely. The voice, again: "There is only one button this time. Press the button, and they all die. Do nothing, and they all live. Whatever you do, don't press the button." He cackles.

Under the libertarian scheme, you're in the clear! Success!

Thought experiment four. Three months have passed. The mad scientist drugged your Zima this time. You think to yourself, "Well, it was basically my fault. But damn those drinks are refreshing." You hear his voice over the loudspeaker. "One button, just like last time, but now you have to press it. Press the button, and they all live. Do nothing, and they all die."

This situation is totally different. If you do nothing, you might feel bad, but you haven't technically committed murder. If you press the button, you're going above and beyond the call of duty. I point out that it is extremely strange that experiment three and four lead to wildly different moral outcomes, even though the only actual difference between the two experiments is that one requires you to move your hand about twelve inches.

Thought experiment five. Three months have passed, and you have bought yourself a brand new blade suit. It has lots of razor sharp swords sticking out of it in every odd direction. It's so stylish and shiny. You are very proud. So you stand out on the sidewalk, modeling the suit for all to see. But there is one person who does not see. It is the local track and field squad, and they're running right at you! The people in front of the squad see you, and they'll move out of the way in time, but the people in the back are in big trouble.

You aren't required to do anything. Since action and inaction are essentially different, you are well within your rights to keep on standing their, posing in a bunch of flattering positions before you gut about five people.

Thought experiment six. Three months have passed, and you decide to go jogging in the still very stylish blade suit. People stare at you, whistle, and clap. Oh the pomp and celebrity. But you look forward and what do you see? Oh no, it's the survivors of the track and field squad! They're stretching and sipping gatorade. If you keep running in a straight line, those people are gonna get a bellyfull of blade suit.

Well, this is a tough one. Is it considered action if you just keep running straight? Or is the action actually stopping in the middle of your run? If it's the latter, than inaction would be continuing to run straight. Maybe inaction is taking a route that goes around the track and field team. You can hardly decide. Things are muddled.

I will now make the claim, and I don't think it is very arguable, that the situations I just described are absurd. And the moral reasoning that follows from each is equally absurd. Obviously, it is unjust to let all four people get incinerated in experiments one and two. Choosing thus is murder. Obviously, we are obligated to do nothing in experiment three, just as we are obligated to press the button in experiment four. To do otherwise is murder. Obviously, we are obligated to move out of the way in experiment five, just as we are obligated to run around the bystanders in experiment six. Clearly, justice has no opinion about action versus inaction.

Which brings me to example seven. The classic example. A child is drowning, and you can very easily jump into the water and save it. If my reasoning up to this point has been sound, if the examples preceding this one were clear examples of murder versus right action, as I think they are, then it follows that in this case, if one does not help the child, then one is murdering the child. In this case, justice does not care about our petty concept of action versus inaction.

I have often wondered about this subject, action versus inaction. On the one hand, we cannot claim that there is no difference at all between action and inaction. After all, we can safely say that Hitler was quite a bit more guilty than the pacifists in England who would advised inaction. On the other hand, the thought experiments above show the absurdities inherent in an "action vs inaction" scheme. What we seek is a borderline for justice. Everything on this side is just. Everything on that side is unjust.

The only tenable hypothesis is that there is no borderline for justice. There is a proggression of things, starting at the forms of perfect goodness and perfect justice, proceeding through the gray area of imperfection, and terminating at absolute evil. It seems to me that the only tenable theories of justice and morality strive for the greatest good; they does not set some arbitrary marker in the sand and declare that things on one side are good while those on the other side are evil.

An enlightened concept of good and evil begins with the notion that we are all evil, because we fall so short of perfection. We must also concede that we are all good, because we are so much greater than pure evil.

But to call a man good, he must be praiseworthy, not just partially good. A man is praiseworthy if his life and his choices tend to increase the good in the world. To call a man bad, he must be blameworthy. We say that a man is blameworthy if his life and his choices tend to increase the evil in the world. In my experience, apathy leads to an increase in evil. Inaction, for the most part, is an evil.

- Hampton Myers
Written 6.9.06

This is Ray's Song. Enjoy.

Hello Nick, I don’t really know you but Zack invited me to enter into the discussion. The nature of philosophy is such that it can only be done amongst friends for the sake of the civility that generates authentic thoughtfulness, so I may be venturing into murky waters here, but hopefully you’ll find this discussion in a spirit of good will. I apologize for being a bit rushed over a complex issue.

Your argument rests on some pretty basically fallacious assumptions. I might as well have stopped reading right here – “I feel that what is best for everyone is justice. What is fair and right. Libertarians draw a line and define what is wrong in a legal sense not morally. Morality is subjective so what is considered illegal should be drawn from some other measure.” In fact, I did pretty much stop reading after the first paragraph, because without your assumptions all other political observations reveal themselves as blindness rather than insight.

Apparently what you are doing is contrasting “objective” judgments – which by your reckoning I can only suppose are scientific and fact-orientated – with “subjective” judgments, i.e. judgments outside the realm of fact. Since I don’t feel like going into what is already a dubious distinction that rests on the assumption that truth can only be revealed through the natural sciences, I’ll simply show you first that you violated your own principles and second that libertarian views rest on the same assumption as statist views.

You claim that libertarians are concerned with justice. I’m assuming that this is an objective concern focused entirely on the law and not “subjective” morality, but you’ve hardly raised the question of what justice is. I can only guess your definition is based on naturalistic observation – that the human race is made up of a group of individuals. From this observation we get the curious libertarian “axioms” of private property and non-aggression, which I can only assume arise from some appreciation of every individual’s abstract intrinsic self-worth. Since I thought we were dealing with what I thought were scientific observations, where this intrinsic self-worth can be found remains enshrouded in mystery. Of course the very idea of axioms – besides the axioms of the legitimacy of scientific methodology – flies in the face of objectivity. It’s quite a leap of conceptual self-deception to go from objectivity to the protection of every naturally valuable individual.

Ultimately, the problem with libertarianism is coeval with the problem of statism. You assume, first, an atomistic model of human society, wherein all people are little particles colliding into one another and tending toward centripetal motion, and all societal norms and customs are masks for the power and control of these morsels of individuality. This ultimate form of power and control you call the state. Of course, that something, namely the state, that has only existed throughout human history in the last two hundred or so years suddenly becomes an “objective” principle of human society is quite extraordinary.

Libertarians, far from dismissing the state as an illusion, in fact assume the state. For the libertarian and statist mind the state of nature, an external rather than internal theory of human nature which overturns 2000 previous years of thought, is the state in which all men as individuals seek power. From this state of nature we derive the state, which is the umbrella of power-relationships under which these individuals must coexist to avoid mutual self-destruction. From the new creation of the state we get two divergent and all-too English theories – the Hobbesian monopolization of this power in the state and the Lockean dispersion of this power throughout the individuals – a single power relationship and an infinite multiplicity of power relationships amongst individuals. Both positions are equally reasonable given their wacky assumptions about the state of nature.

In the end it seems that you confuse the superstructure with the substructure. In other words, you assume an artificial model of what is an organic phenomena – the web of human relationships, in which no man can be abstracted to an individual particle or abstracted to that castle in the sky known to gushy humanitarians as mankind.

- Ethan Guagliardo
Written 6.1.06

7-Eleven dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo

7-Eleven Inc. is dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo as its gasoline supplier after more than 20 years as part of a previously announced plan by the convenience store operator to launch its own brand of fuel.

7-Eleven officials said Wednesday that the company's decision was partly motivated by politics.

Citgo Petroleum Corp. is a Houston-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-run oil company and 7-Eleven is worried that anti-American comments made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez might prompt motorists to fill-up elsewhere.

Chavez has called President George W. Bush the devil and an alcoholic. The U.S. government has warned that Chavez is a destabilizing force in Latin America.

"Regardless of politics, we sympathize with many Americans' concern over derogatory comments about our country and its leadership recently made by Venezuela's president," said 7-Eleven spokeswoman Margaret Chabris.

"Certainly Chavez's position and statements over the past year or so didn't tempt us to stay with Citgo," she added.

Instead, 7-Eleven, which sells gasoline at 2,100 of its 5,300 U.S. stores, will now purchase fuel from several distributors, including Tower Energy Group of Torrance, Calif., Sinclair Oil of Salt Lake City, and Houston-based Frontier Oil Corp.

Chabris said 7-Eleven's decision to sell its own brand was based on many factors, including Citgo's decision this summer to stop supplying stations in parts of Texas and other states to focus on retailers closer to its refineries in Corpus Christi, Lake Charles, La., and Lemont, Ill.



But 7-Eleven had been considering creating its own brand of fuel since at least early last year, and some analysts suggested 7-Eleven may now be hyping the political angle a way to curry favor with U.S. consumers.

"This has nothing to do with Chavez," said Oil Price Information Service director Tom Kloza. "They (7-Eleven) just didn't want to be tied to one supplier."

Kloza said all 7-Eleven did was seek out suppliers who could sell it the cheapest fuel and "that was not Citgo."

Citgo spokesman Fernando Garay declined to comment on whether Chavez's comments had a bearing on 7-Eleven's change in suppliers. He said the break was "a mutual agreement of the two companies."

Garay said 7-Eleven was a "significant" part of Citgo's retail presence in Texas and Florida. "It was a valued relationship," he said.

In July, Citgo decided to stop distributing gasoline to 1,800 independently owned U.S. stations because it was a lackluster segment of its business.

In order to meet service contracts at 13,100 Citgo-branded stations across the U.S., Citgo had to purchase 130,000 barrels a day from third parties — a less profitable business model than selling gasoline directly from its refineries.

In case you guys missed it, this was a great (and telling) news item from last week:

Ohio car dealership blasted for jihad ad

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A car dealership's planned radio advertisement that declared "a jihad on the automotive market" has drawn sharp criticism for its content but will not be changed, the business said Saturday.

Several stations rejected the Dennis Mitsubishi spot, which says sales representatives wearing "burqas" - head-to-toe traditional dress for Islamic women - will sell vehicles that can "comfortably seat 12 jihadists in the back."

"Our prices are lower than the evildoers' every day. Just ask the pope!" the ad says. "Friday is fatwa Friday, with free rubber swords for the kiddies." A fatwa is a religious edict.

Dealership president Keith Dennis said the ad does not disrespect any religion or culture. He said it was "fair game" to poke "a little fun at radical extremists."

"It was our intention to craft something around some of the buzzwords of the day and give everyone a good chuckle and be a little bit of a tension reliever," he said.

The Columbus chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations decried the ad as disrespectful.

"Using that as a promotional pitch when so many are dying from the criminal activity of suicide bombers, that's not funny," chapter president Asma Mobin-Uddin said. "I don't think it's appropriate when it causes real pain. It exploits or promotes misunderstanding in terms already misunderstood or misused."

The ad, written and produced by the company, will begin airing next week, although he was uncertain of which radio stations had accepted the spot, Dennis said.

In response to pressures from the CAIR of Columbus, the dealership decided to pull the ad. Once again, free speech is kicked in the mouth in the name of "tolerance."

Tucker Carlson, sounding remarkably lucid on his show on MSNBC, interviews a representative from the Columbus chapter of the CAIR:




Always be wary of people that can't take a joke, it only shows they care way too much.

Ladies and gentleman, the last bastion of the radical American Left, the great ivory towers of academia, are beginning to crumble at their very foundation. The old saying "you always become what you hate" couldn't be more true.

From The Marquette Tribune, the student-run newspaper at Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI:

1960s Leftism Threatens Campus Discussion

By John McAdams

Academia has long leaned to the left politically, but until the last generation or so, it was dominated by traditional liberals. These liberals prided themselves on "tolerance."

Of course, liberals can be as intolerant as anybody else, but traditional liberals claimed to be tolerant, tried to be tolerant, and when cornered often would be tolerant.

But this has changed. Increasingly, during the last generation, academia has seen the rise of '60s leftism as the dominant ideology.

'60s leftists, remember, read Herbert Marcuse explaining how tolerance was "repressive," were willing to shout down speakers they disagreed with, disrupt classes of professors whose views they objected to, and in extreme cases bomb and burn campus buildings. (Most didn't resort to violence, but quite a large number condoned violence used by the anti-war movement.)

Marquette has been, happily, "behind the times" on this, but unfortunately, we are catching up.

The problem is not so much the children of the '60s (few in number at Marquette and well into their 50s) as the grandchildren of the '60s — trained by children of the '60s in Ph.D. programs and coming to constitute a critical mass in several Marquette departments.

Case in point: Philosophy graduate student Stuart Ditsler posted on his office door the following quote from columnist Dave Barry:

"As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government."

This is provocative, to be sure, but isn't free speech supposed to be? Philosophy Department Chair James South didn't think so, and he tore the post down.

In an e-mail to Ditsler, he said that: "I had several complaints today about a quotation that was on the door of CH 132F. I've taken the quotation down. While I am a strong supporter of academic freedom, I'm afraid that hallways and office doors are not 'free-speech zones.' If material is patently offensive and has no obvious academic import or university sanction, I have little choice but to take note."

What kind of ninny becomes "offended" at seeing a libertarian quote on an office door at Marquette? And how is the quote "patently offensive?" South has refused to say.

In fact, philosophy faculty have been quite free to post cartoons on their doors attacking President Bush and the "values voters" who supposedly elected Bush in 2004. But the Dave Barry quote was verboten.

Thus '60s leftists and their spiritual children (and grandchildren) think themselves free to ban any sort of speech they think "offensive" or "hate speech" or "against human rights."

And of course, they think they are the ones who get to define what is "offensive" or "hate speech" or "against human rights."

Traditional liberals are people you can talk to and disagree with. '60s leftists are people convinced that no discussion is needed, indeed that discussion is dangerous, and that if you disagree with them you should be shut up.

McAdams is an associate professor of political science.

Chairman Facing Ridicule in Quebec

CBC chairman Guy Fournier recently told a French-language radio station that bowel movements are better than sex. He also infuriated Lebanese Canadians when he claimed that Lebanon permits bestiality.

MONTREAL - CBC chairman Guy Fournier has become the target of anger and derision in his home province after falsely claiming that Lebanon permits bestiality and for granting a lengthy interview on the joys of bowel movements.

On Sunday night, Mr. Fournier, appeared on one of Quebec's most-watched television shows, Tout le monde en parle, ostensibly to apologize for a magazine column he wrote making the unfounded bestiality claims.

In his Sept. 9 weekly column for the magazine 7 Jours, Mr. Fournier included the following nugget: "In Lebanon, the law allows men to have sexual relations with animals as long as they are female! Doing the same thing with male beasts can result in the death penalty."

The problem was that the information, gleaned from the Internet, was false. Montreal's Lebanese community was incensed, and a local university instructor of Lebanese descent began steps to file a lawsuit.

Addressing the audience of Radio-Canada's Tout le monde en parle, which regularly numbers more than two million, Mr. Fournier admitted he had not verified the information before publication.

"It was done to make people smile but it has shocked many people in the Lebanese diaspora, so I apologize to them," he said. He added that from now on he will stop all outside activities, including the 7 Jours column, and focus on his role with the public broadcaster.

The show's host, Guy A. Lepage, then moved the discussion along, digging up a little-noticed interview Mr. Fournier gave last May to a small French-language radio station in Toronto, during which the CBC/Radio-Canada chairman rhapsodized about defecation for more than 10 minutes.

Mr. Fournier recounted a train trip in the early 1960s during which a friend named Michel said going number two was as pleasurable as having sex.

"From that moment, I started paying closer attention -- and I have to tell you, I quickly realized that Michel was entirely right," Mr. Fournier said.

"And the most extraordinary thing is that, in the end, as you grow older, you continue to go poop once a day if you are in good health, while it is not easy to make love every day. So finally, the pleasure is longer-lasting and more frequent than the other."

He also advised against distractions while on the toilet. "There are even people who push the heresy to the point of doing Sudoku or crosswords rather than concentrating on the pleasure that they would have doing the thing," Mr. Fournier told his radio interviewer. "It is just as heretical as if you read the National Post while making love. It is not to be recommended."

Writing in Le Soleil yesterday, TV critic Richard Therrien said Mr. Fournier's attempt at damage control backfired. "No, Fournier did not come off as more sympathetic but more foolish. How long is he going to survive on the board of directors?" Mr. Therrien asked.

Alain-Michel Ayache, a political science instructor at the Universite du Quebec a Montreal, said he had not decided whether Mr. Fournier's televised apology was sufficient for him to abandon his planned lawsuit.

This is a clip from a daily internet show. It's one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time:

the show with zefrank

From the venerable Victor Davis Hanson:

Islamic Fascism 101
On all they’ve done to earn the name.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Make no apologies for the use of “Islamic fascism.” It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist” appeasers in the West is just too bad.

First, the general idea of “fascism” — the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology — fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.

In addition, Islamists, as is true of all fascists, privilege their own particular creed of true believers by harkening back to a lost, pristine past, in which the devout were once uncorrupted by modernism.

True, bin Laden’s mythical Volk doesn’t bath in the clear icy waters of the Rhine untouched by the filth of the Tiber; but rather they ride horses and slice the wind with their scimitars in service of a soon to be reborn majestic world of caliphs and mullahs. Osama bin Laden sashaying in his flowing robes is not all that different from the obese Herman Goering in reindeer horns plodding around his Karinhall castle with suspenders and alpine shorts.

Because fascism is born out of insecurity and the sense of failure, hatred for Jews is de rigueur. To read al Qaeda’s texts is to reenter the world of Mein Kampf (naturally now known as jihadi in the Arab world). The crackpot minister of its ideology, Dr. Zawahiri, is simply a Dr. Alfred Rosenberg come alive — a similar quarter-educated buffoon, who has just enough of a vocabulary to dress up fascist venom in a potpourri of historical misreadings and pseudo-learning.

Envy and false grievance, as in the past with Italian, German, or Japanese whining, are always imprinted deeply within the fascist mind. After all, it can never quite figure out why the morally pure, the politically zealous, the ever more obedient are losing out to corrupt and decadent democracies — where “mixing,” either in the racial or religious sense, should instead have enervated the people.

The “will” of the German people, like the “Banzai” spirit of the Japanese, should always trump the cowardly and debased material superiority of decadent Western democracies. So al Qaeda boasts that in Somalia and Afghanistan the unshakeable creed of Islam overcame the richer and better equipped Americans and Russians. To read bin Laden’s communiqués is to be reminded of old Admiral Yamamato assuring his creepy peers that his years in the United States in the 1920s taught him that Roaring Twenties America, despite its fancy cars and skyscrapers, simply could not match the courage of the chosen Japanese.

Second, fascism thrives best in a once proud, recently humbled, but now ascendant, people. They are ripe to be deluded into thinking contemporary setbacks were caused by others and are soon to be erased through ever more zealotry. What Versailles and reparations were to Hitler’s new Germany, what Western colonialism and patronizing in the Pacific were to the rising sun of the Japanese, what the embarrassing image of the perennial sick man of Europe was to Mussolini’s new Rome, so too Israel, modernism, and America’s ubiquitous pop culture are to the Islamists, confident of a renaissance via vast petro-weatlh.

Such reactionary fascism is complex because it marries the present’s unhappiness with moping about a regal past — with glimpses of an even more regal future. Fascism is not quite the narcotic of the hopeless, but rather the opiate of the recently failed now on the supposed rebound who welcome the cheap fix of blaming others and bragging about their own iron will.

Third, while there is generic fascism, its variants naturally weave preexisting threads familiar to a culture at large. Hitler’s brand cribbed together notions of German will, Aryanism, and the cult of the Ubermensch from Hegel, Nietzsche, and Spengler, with ample Nordic folk romance found from Wagner to Tacitus’s Germania. Japanese militarism’s racist creed, fanaticism, and sense of historical destiny were a motley synthesis of Bushido, Zen and Shinto Buddhism, emperor worship, and past samurai legends. Mussolini’s fasces, and the idea of an indomitable Caesarian Duce (or Roman Dux), were a pathetic attempt to resurrect imperial Rome. So too Islamic fascism draws on the Koran, the career of Saladin, and the tracts of Nasserites, Baathists, and Muslim Brotherhood pamphleteers.

Fourth, just as it was idle in the middle of World War II to speculate how many Germans, Japanese, or Italians really accepted the silly hatred of Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, so too it is a vain enterprise to worry over how many Muslims follow or support al Qaeda, or, in contrast, how many in the Middle East actively resist Islamists.

Most people have no ideology, but simply accommodate themselves to the prevailing sense of an agenda’s success or failure. Just as there weren’t more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940, so too there wasn’t a Nazi to be found in June 1945 when Berlin lay in rubble.

It doesn’t matter whether Middle Easterners actually accept the tenets of bin Laden’s worldview — not if they think he is on the ascendancy, can bring them a sense of restored pride, and humiliate the Jews and the West on the cheap. Bin Laden is no more eccentric or impotent than Hitler was in the late 1920s.Yet if he can claim that his martyrs forced the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppled a petrol sheikdom or two, and acquired its wealth and influence — or if he got his hands on nuclear weapons and lorded it over appeasing Westerners — then he too, like the Fuhrer in the 1930s, will become untouchable. The same is true of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad.

Fifth, fascism springs from untruth and embraces lying. Hitler had contempt for those who believed him after Czechoslovakia. He broke every agreement from Munich to the Soviet non-aggression pact. So did the Japanese, who were sending their fleet to Pearl Harbor even as they talked of a new diplomatic breakthrough.

Al-Zawahiri in his writings spends an inordinate amount of effort excusing al Qaeda’s lies by referring to the Koranic notions of tactical dissimulation. We remember Arafat saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, and bin Laden denying responsibility for September 11 and then later boasting of it. Nothing a fascist says can be trusted, since all means are relegated to the ends of seeing their ideology reified. So too Islamic fascists, by any means necessary, will fib, and hedge for the cause of Islamism. Keep that in mind when considering Iran’s protestations about its “peaceful” nuclear aims.

We can argue whether the present-day Islamic fascists have the military means comparable to what was had in the past by Nazis, Fascists, and militarists — I think a dirty bomb is worth the entire Luftwaffe, one nuclear missile all the striking power of the Japanese imperial Navy — but there should be no argument over who they are and what they want. They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple.

And the least we can do is to call them that: after all, they earned it.

"[ A democracy] can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury." -Alexander Tytler

"The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid." -Art Spander

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities, and the smallest minority on earth is the individual" –Ayn Rand

The growing ranks of socialists in the world, and in this country in particular, is of great concern to myself and those who share my philosophy of free market, free mind individualism. As we approach the presidential elections of 2008, the candidates have already begun planning their "“shock and awe" media blitzes to lay the groundwork for their bids to the oval office. While my own opinion is that Mrs. Hillary Clinton will not be able to wrestle her party'’s nomination, her core platform will likely find a large audience all around the fruited plain. One of the main issues that she is hoping will propel her into political history, something she and her husband tried to bring to the floor while the latter was President, is something she cleverly calls a "“single payer healthcare system."” Something cleverly disguised in this euphamism is that the "“single payer"” is you and me, and that this system is better known as socialized healthcare.

Socialized medicine is a profoundly bad idea for everyone involved. For patients, it means longer and longer waiting periods to receive routine medical examinations, the very thing that the medical community agrees can save lives through early detection. It also imposes "“trusts," similar to school districts, which assign you to a specific doctor or medical center as determined by where you live, not who you think is best to meet your medical needs. For doctors, this system imposes industry standards for services, meaning that the best doctors cannot charge any more for their services than any other doctors, making the time and expense of becoming a physician look far less worthwhile for young people, and makes other, non-government controlled industries, like research and development, look very appealing for current doctors.

What has inevitably occurred in virtually every country that has adopted such a program is debt beyond any expectations: its’s a simple enough rule, once you make something free, the demand will increase exponentially. The equally inevitable result? Poor quality healthcare because doctors are forced to see more patients in a day in order to maintain a reasonable income.

In Canada, seeking the help of a physician outside the National Health Service is illegal. This means that if you're not happy with the system as it'’s currently laid out, and you approach a doctor to treat you or your family in a private transaction, you can be fined by the government. The only reason the Canadian healthcare system has been able to sustain itself thus far is because of the ability of the average Canadian, invariably older with chronic health problems, can always walk across the border to obtain timely and competent healthcare for the right price.

All this being said, the inherent flaws are more complex then even we critics could have expected.

A recent article from the London Telegraph:

Too successful: the hospitals forced to introduce minimum waiting times

Hospitals across the country are imposing minimum waiting times - delaying the treatment of thousands of patients.

After years of Government targets pushing them to cut waiting lists, staff are now being warned against "over-performing" by treating patients too quickly. The Sunday Telegraph has learned that at least six trusts have imposed the minimum times.

In March, Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Health, offered her apparent blessing for the minimum waiting times by announcing they would be "appropriate" in some cases. Amid fears about £1.27 billion [2.42 billion US] of NHS [National Health Service] debts, she expressed concern that some hospitals were so productive "they actually got ahead of what the NHS could afford".

The minimum waiting times, however, dismayed Katherine Murphy, of the Patients' Association, who said last night: "This all stems from bad financial planning and management. No wonder there is a crisis. If staff are available for an operation, they should be utilized."

Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, added that the minimum waiting times shed new light on the Government's target that patients should wait no longer than six months.[!] "It is outrageous that the purpose of the Government's targets is not so much to drive down waiting times, as to impose a six-month wait."

The measures also seem certain to add to the anger that erupted last week after Ipswich Hospital in Suffolk admitted it had forfeited £2.4 million because it treated patients too quickly, having already agreed a 122-day minimum waiting time with East Suffolk Primary Care Trust (PCT), its funding body. The hospital finished the last financial year £16.7 million in the red.

Douglas Seaton, 60, a consultant physician who worked with the restraints of the minimum waiting times before retiring from Ipswich Hospital in June, said: "In the last year, we have seen disastrous strains. The senior managers are following political instructions. The Government is holding the reins and it is not working."

A spokesman for the hospital and the PCT insisted that no one was denied urgent treatment, adding: "This is a local issue. It doesn't have national significance."

The Sunday Telegraph has learned of five further minimum-waiting-time directives. In May, Staffordshire Moorlands PCT, which funds services at two hospitals and is more than £5 million in the red, introduced a 19-week minimum wait for in-patients and 10 weeks for out-patients. A spokesman said: "These were the least worst cuts we could make." In March, Eastbourne Downs PCT, expected to overspend by £7 million this year, ordered a six-month minimum wait for non-urgent operations. Also in March, it was revealed that Medway PCT, with a deficit of £12.4 million, brought in a nine-week wait for out-patient appointments and 20 weeks for non-urgent operations.

Doctors are also resigning. One gyncologist said that he spent more time doing sudoku puzzles than treating patients because of the measures. Since January, West Hertfordshire NHS Trust, with a deficit of £41 million, has used a 10-week minimum wait for routine GP referrals to hospital. Watford and Three Rivers PCT, £13.2 million in the red, has introduced "demand management": no in-patient or day case is admitted before five months.

There is no evidence that in any of these cases, emergency treatment or cancer care was delayed.

Elsewhere, serious financial tensions are emerging between hospitals and the PCTs paying them.

In June, the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust claimed it might have to send patients back to their GPs because of insufficient funding from Bournemouth Teaching PCT. The dispute was resolved, but not before the PCT told the Health Service Journal that it was "disappointed that the Foundation Trust refused to slow the pace of its work. Much of this overperformance could have been avoided."

Sue Slipman, the director of the Foundation Trust Network, which represents all 32 existing foundation trusts and 10 trusts preparing for foundation status, warned of nine similar disputes over funding worth a total of £28 million.

Michael Dixon, the chairman of the NHS Alliance, representing PCTs, blamed the inflexibility of the Government's Payment by Results system. "PCTs are operating with one arm tied behind their back. Whereas hospitals are able to do more operations, PCTs are unable to negotiate the rate they'll pay for the extra work because it's fixed."

The concept of socialized medicine is based on the singularly flawed idea that medical care, as a product, is different than any other service that is exchanged in the normal practice of economy. This idea states that the care of one'’s health is so important, that it must be removed from the corrupting and trivial arena of normal business transacted between two persons.

The irony, of course, is that the cost of this type of healthcare system, when compared to the product received, is vastly more expensive than any free market could ever bear.

Since the end of the Second World War, when the fist sparks of modern technology began to twinkle in the visible distance, the quality of life in The United States of America has increased, while the costs of living have decreased. As the global economy expanded, and the technology of transportation and communication improved, more and more people entered this global marketplace, drawn by the brilliantly simple and effective concept of supply and demand.

It is no coincidence that two of the major issues that will set the tone for the upcoming Presidential election, two issues that have routinely made their way onto the agenda for the last twenty years, the rising costs of both healthcare and higher education, are the two areas of the marketplace in which the government, at both state and Federal levels are most directly involved and most heavily invested. The simple truth is that the more the government works to solve a problem, to which the solution is invariably "“spend more money,"” the worse that problem gets.

The solution to the "“healthcare crisis"” in America is not more, it'’s less. Less instruction, fewer regulations, and minimal involvement of people empowered to make life-altering decisions for people they'’ve never even met.

This world has reached a new point of moral decline.....

Perusing craigslist I decided to visit the "men seeking women" section. In case you didn't know this is where the world's socially inept degenerates congregate on the internet to create a forum where desperate individuals may meet other desperate individuals in hopes of engaging in debauchery. These men are simply pathetic. Well, I looked at one profile and it had an advertisement for the following:

http://www.seekingarrangement.com

Yeah, look again. That's what it is. It's a dating service that brings "interested" individuals together; namely a sugar daddy/mommy and a sugar baby (male/female). What ensues cannot be interpreted in any other way than legal prostitution.

Here is my favorite part of the advertisement:

It's Natural:

Let's face it... It's human nature for older men to want the younger and more attractive women. It's also natural for younger women to seek out men who are successful, specifically those who have the means of providing a woman with comforts and luxuries.

While some society may have laid down a set of unsaid rules about extra-Marital affairs or pre-Marital sex, who is to say what is "right" or "wrong"? In the past, Kings, Shahs and Emperors have had multiple lovers or concubines. It is human instinct to be attracted to beauty, as it is to be attracted to wealth and power. Remember, that life is short and you only live once... So, why not explore what it may be like to find an ideal arrangement today.

I'm convinced. Who IS to say that anything is right or wrong? I mean, in the past, Kings, Shahs and Emperors have had sexual relations with young children and their nuclear family. Who are you to judge? It's natural!

Well, seeing this, what do you suppose I did? That's right, I joined it to see what sort of people actually try to obtain a "sugar baby." During the membership process they ask you what you are looking to be: a sugar daddy/mommy or sugar baby male/female. I chose to become a sugar baby male. They then ask you to confirm your decision with the following:



I chose "Yes. This is what I look like"

Well, once was in I began the searches. And I'll tell you I saw some pretty disturbing things. Here is one of the more frightening ads:

Sugar Mommy : OLD FATTY LOOKING FOR YOUNG HOTTIE Name: Nora Age: 66 Height: 1.52 meters (4' 12") Body: Full / Overweight Location: Texas, United States Budget : Open - Amount Negotiable Seeking: Sugar Baby (M), Sugar Baby(F) Profile Created: 18 August '06

We've got a 66 year old "fatty" looking for a "young hottie." She also describes herself as a "heavy drinker and heavy smoker." Brilliant. Good luck to you Nora.

Note the "budget" description. This is how much the "sugar mommy" is willing to give to their "sugar baby" each month for their "services." Suffice it to say that's some expensive "conversation."

But it has to get better, right? It sure does!

I rejoined, but this time as a "sugar daddy."



Smoking cigars and looking like a pedophile is apparently a prerequisite to acquiring the status of "sugar daddy."

So, here are where the true gems are:

Sugar Baby (F) : LOOKING TO BE PAMPERED Name: SEXY STEPH Age: 35 Height: 1.6 meters (5' 3") Body: Full / Overweight Location: Michigan, United States Expect : Open - Amount Negotiable Seeking: Sugar Daddy Profile Created: 22 September '06

Hey! She doesn't sound so bad, I mean come on! Her name is "Sexy Steph."

Say hello to Sexy Steph:

INSERT PICTURE OF DISGUSTING MAN-THING WITH HER 6 MONTH OLD CHILD ON HER LAP AND 5 YEAR OLD CHILD IN BACKGROUND. HER PICTURE HAS SINCE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE WEBSITE I WAS FEEDING OFF OF. SHE LOOKS SOMETHING LIKE THIS:

Yeah, that's no joke ladies and gentleman. And that is not a man. But He-man's information page gets really interesting:

Drinking Habit: Social Drinker
Summary: LOOKING TO BE PAMPERED
Description: I am 35 mwf, looking for a man to spoil and pamper me, who knows how to live life to it's fullest extent, and a man that's looking for a woman for what she's about on the inside instead of the outside, someone who's true and not a game player.
Arrangement I'm Seeking
I'm Seeking: Sugar Daddy
I Expect: Open - Amount Negotiable
Description: I am looking for a sugar daddy who is willing to travel to see me, and also someone who is willing to buy me anything i want and need.

So, Jabba here is married, has children, and is looking to trade sex for money. She also wants someone to travel to see her. I don't even want to get into the example she's setting for her kids by taking pictures with them in her lap to entice "sugar daddies" to engage into legal prostitution with her but WHAT THE FUCK? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe, just maybe, she's shooting a little high.

And the final jewel of my eye: Sugar Baby - F.

Hey, she's actually pretty attractive! I mean, I would totally pay her for legal prostitution if I were that kind of immoral, unscrupulous, disgusting, morally repugnant, misogynistic man-whore. No lie, mom! But her profile is what's most interesting:

Is this guy serious?

I would like to welcome you the The Salt Makers. This is an open forum in which politics, pop culture, current events and good whiskey can be discussed.

All opinions are welcome, and the comments are open to all. If you would like to post a topic, a news story of interest, or would be interested in becoming a permanent member of The Salt Makers team, please send your request to scott.sonnier[at]gmail.com.

All opinions and all spectrums of modern political thought are welcome. This is a place of good-natured discussion and debate. Your opinion, no matter how radical or seemingly trivial, will be given equal consideration, and equal ridicule.

If you cry easily, I would not suggest contributing to this site.