The Edge of Reason

AMERICA is to Blame -- the Syrian Tragedy

2012-02-08T15:11:00.010-05:00

For once, I could be seen to agree with most of the rest of the world about a current international tragedy: I say AMERICA is to blame for the horrific massacre now taking place in Syria. We are to blame because we have become a nation of moral cowards, willing to withstand anything besides soundly and proudly crushing these belligerent, dictatorial theocracies that have waged open war on the United States for decades.

We are to blame because we refuse to recognize the blatant fact that these maniacal regimes consider us demons to be destroyed (or at least conquered and cowed). While moral traitors in our own country proclaim that America is responsible for the zealous blood lust of some foreign leaders, those same foreign powers plot continually to kill us in every way possible. One self-proclaimed messiah is completely naked in his ambition to annihilate a relatively peaceful neighbor in a nuclear holocaust. AMERICA is to blame for this.

We are to blame because we are too cowardly now to wage total war. The last time Congress declared war on an enemy nation was June 5, 1942. The result of that conflict was a lasting set of peaceful allies who have never since been a threat to us or anyone else. Subsequent "peace/police actions" by the U.S. have resulted in lasting enemies: North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and, eventually, a newly theocratized Iraq. None of those countries were ever truly defeated. None were permanently disarmed. None were prevented from reorganizing and strengthening into a new, more dangerous breed of enemy. We are to blame for this.

These Islamist Terror States, most of them born in the blood of innocents, have not killed or conquered us all only because they lack the capability to do so -- for now. But they're working on it -- hard -- while the Western world buries its collective head in the sand. Fortunately for us it turns out that brutal dictatorship is not an ideal form of government. The military might of the Middle East combined is a fly we could swat with a flick of our military's mighty wrist. The only reason these regimes continue to thrive and terrorize is that we refuse to eliminate them.

The Greatest Generation of our noble nation would never have allowed such a thing to happen. They would have demanded that Congress declare war, achieve complete victory, and permanently remove the threat. The rogue terror state of Iran shouldn't be allowed to have a fucking patrol boat, much less a nuclear arsenal. Instead, Iran brazenly leads the charge of Islamic Totalitarianism, biding its time and supplying its surrogates with the resources to murder us in ever-growing numbers -- while the current crop of American leaders, yellow bastards without a spot of moral courage, can barely muster up a series of strongly worded "official" statements.

Look and see for yourself what is happening to these families in Homs, Syria. They are being slaughtered by the hundreds and thousands. The Syrian military is firing heavy artillery, rockets, and bombs at civilians in their own country. They are carpeting the area with explosives, maximizing medical care casualties, and killing anyone who tries to escape the city. Go read their stories and witness their tragedy. America is to blame for this.

Since we are too scared to do anything about it ourselves, I hope at least that America will allow Israel to do what we won't (lest we get our hands dirty). Either way, we are still to blame. And it's a goddamned shame.

--Dan Edge

Re-Checking Some Premises

2012-01-24T17:50:00.013-05:00

Update: Dr. Hsieh has written her own response to the shameful checkingpremises.org site here.

A new Objectivism-related website named checkingpremises.org went live yesterday. My interest was piqued when I saw a link in Facebook comments, so I paid the new site a visit. According to its Purpose page, the site was "created by serious students and proponents of Objectivism in response to the danger that some, who may seem in agreement with the philosophy, are in fact subverting it."

Checkingpremises.org contains a few select quotes and links related to David Kelly, the Brandens, and Libertarianism. Also present is Peikoff's oft-quoted "Fact and Value," a very enlightening statement on disputes within the Objectivist movement. Links to works by Harry Binswanger, Peter Schwartz, and Ayn Rand are there as well.

So far, this is nothing unusual. There are already numerous sites on the web offering resource material on various disputes in the Objectivist movement. This site adds nothing new on that front, and is by comparison quite lacking in content. What makes checkingpremises.org stand out (and not in a good way) is its concerted, focused attack on professional intellectual Dr. Diana Hsieh. Based on the website's presentation at launch, one can only assume that it was created specifically to attack Dr. Hsieh, and explicitly to lump her together with David Kelly, the Brandens, and Libertarianism, i.e., as an enemy of Objectivism.

[At launch,] Checkpremises.com contains a total of 13 pages: one page on its Purpose, one page on its Context, one page about Libertarianism, one page about the Brandens, one page about David Kelly, one Resources page, one About Us page, and six pages about Dr. Diana Hsieh. Even more striking is the complete lack of meaningful content on the non-Hsieh-related pages. For example, the entries on David Kelly and the Brandens contain two sentences and one link each. The Current Controversies page -- dedicated entirely to Dr. Hsieh -- contains two full paragraphs along with links to five other pages, each with additional comments on Hsieh's alleged transgressions against Objectivism.

Despite their mission to expose "subversive" threats to Objectivism, the authors of checkpremises.com contribute nothing of value to advance this end. The entries on Kelley and the Brandens are ridiculously short; no effort whatsoever is made to substantiate criticism of these individuals. This is not to say no criticism can be made, only that the site's creators make no attempt to do so.

Ironically, Drs. Diana and Paul Hsieh have contributed literal volumes of thought-provoking essays related to the various Objectivist splits. Dr. Diana Hsieh's collection of essays False Friends of Objectivism contains a wealth of insights from a professional intellectual who has been personally and emphtically promoting Objectivism for many years. Dr. Paul Hsieh's brilliant article The Fable of the Cartiac Surgeon is perhaps the best, most easily accessible criticism of Libertarianism I have ever read. I may not agree with everything the Hsiehs have written over the years, but they are always thoughtful, they always cite their sources, and they always stimulate the mind. They are fiercely independent thinkers who have dedicated their lives to promoting a philosopy for life on earth. They are anything but subversive enemies of Objectivism.

If there is anything "subversive" brought to light by checkpremises.org, it is the underhanded way in which an entire website was created as a giant smear of Dr. Hsieh, then dressed up and presented as a resource site for conflicts within the Objectivist movement.

For a site that boasts of fifteen contributors, it is laughably short on content and substance. These fifteen individuals (did they write one sentence each?) expose one further subvertive element within the Objectivist community: the tendancy of loud, cynical, moralizing Objectivists to wage propoganda wars against purported "enemies" over non-essential disagreements. A distinction needs to be made between anti-Objectivists like Kelley, the Brandens, or pedophile-defender Michael Stuart Kelly -- and others like Tracinski, McCaskey, and the Hsiehs (and Reisman and Packer?) who have had non-essential disagreements with other Objectivist intellectuals which blew up into widely-publicized conflicts.

Thankfully, this destructive trend to focus disproportionately on negative elements within the Objectivist community seems to be waning. Objectivist bloggers and professional intellectuals are dissiminating the philosophy every day by applying it to a variety practical subjects. Those with a passion for written communication openly debate a wide range of topics, and all benefit. Your average college-age Objectivist out there may not even know who David Kelley is, but is much more likely to have written dozens of posts on internet forums in his pursuit of knowledge. I think this is a very good thing.

Dr. Diana Hsieh is already a much more important contributor to the history of the Objectivist movement than David Kelley ever was. She is a far greater a contributor still than those now concocting these smears against her. The tens of thousands of pages of material she's published, the thousands of online discussions, and the dozens of lectures speak for themselves. While I would never say that I'm in the Hsieh's "camp" (they don't have one) I consider them much greater allies, who contribute so much more to my life, than those Self-Centered, Malevolent People Premisers of checkpremises.org.

--Dan Edge

Goodbye Dr. Lewis, Mentor and Freedom Fighter

2012-01-08T21:13:00.005-05:00

A few days ago I learned the terrible news that Dr. John David Lewis, possibly my favorite professional intellectual I’ve ever met, lost his battle with cancer and passed away on January 3, 2012. I had the great pleasure of meeting Dr. Lewis on a number of occasions, and was always struck by his passion, his intelligence, his charisma, and his acute judgement. Though I spent less than 15 hours with him in total, I received an incredible bounty of concentrated education, which led to hundreds more hours of contemplation and conversation, all inspired by this one man.

I’ve read several moving tributes to Dr. Lewis over the past few days, including kind notes from Paul and Diana Hsieh, Craig Biddle, and the ARI via Yaron Brook. As these and others have done, I would like to share a story about one of the ways in which Dr. Lewis changed my life for the better.

After 9/11, I was mad as hell and cried out (in vain) for a proper retribution. Though in general I supported military action against state sponsors of terrorism, I still didn’t fully understand what Dr. Lewis called “The Will to Victory.” I scoffed at friends who called for a nuclear strike on our enemies, or for mass bombing to target the enemy population and industry. I had studied a great deal of military history, but had never fully integrated the concept of individual rights with the function of the military. Dr. Lewis changed all that forever.

My first step was reading his articles No Substitute for Victory and William Tecumseh Sherman and the Moral Impetus to Victory. These articles are so clear, so well-researched, and so logically sound, I was immediately inclined to agree with his view. As wonderful and convincing as these articles are, they do not compare to meeting Dr. Lewis in person. I attended an event of his about the Iranian threat for the NYU Objectivist Club, and was delighted at the quality of the lecture. Dr. Lewis was even better during the Q+A period, dealing effectively and charismatically with every question.

I asked Dr. Lewis to clarify an issue related to individual rights: If all men possess individual rights, including civilians living in an enemy country, isn’t it a violation of their rights to destroy their homes and offices? After all, they didn’t do anything to us, not directly. How can we justify raining utter destruction on entire cities of non-combatants?

Thanks to Dr. Lewis, I already had an outline for the answer to this question. And his response filled in the rest of the pieces of the puzzle. Dr. Lewis has a way of making complex ideas amazingly clear. He explained to me that individual rights define man’s needs in a social context. It runs counter to our need for freedom to allow enemy nations to flourish though our own lack of moral will. History teaches us again and again that coddling an enemy, giving ground, anything less than the conviction to achieve complete victory, will result in failure.

After the lecture, I had the pleasure of dining with Dr. Lewis and talking with him casually. He was so positive, so generous, so excited to be there -- it was infectious. Dr. Lewis loved to laugh, and he could speak intelligently on virtually any topic. But even with all that knowledge, whenever he spoke to you he always showed interest in you. He made everyone feel at ease. He was a natural people person because he was a genuine lover of human life.

I met Dr. Lewis several more times, and each time my respect and admiration for him grew. He made such a difference in so many lives, mine included, and I deeply mourn his loss. He will live on in the memories of those he inspired, to learn all that we can and to fight the good fight, as he did. Goodbye Dr. Lewis, mentor and freedom fighter.

--Dan Edge

A Summary of My Thoughts on the Peikoff/McCaskey Affair

2010-11-16T20:43:00.003-05:00

Over the past few weeks I've been digesting the details of the Peikoff/McCaskey affair and the subsequent fallout in the online Objectivist community. A few days ago I wrote a short, 4-page essay about this issue and the possible implications for the future of the Objectivist movement. While I wrote this in large part to clarify my own thoughts, I originally intended to publish it in full.

But I have a tendency to get wrapped up in controversies of this kind, and I've grown weary of the heated polemics on both sides. For this reason and others, I'm only going to post three general conclusions that came out of my reflection and research. I don't plan to spend too much time defending these conclusions; I'm ready to move on to other things.

1. Over the last decade, the ARI has experienced unprecedented growth in its income, project support, positive publicity, and large-scale dissemination of Objectivist ideas. I believe that this degree of success is due primarily to the expert leadership and organizational management of Yaron Brooke and his team. The new tendency to hire business and public relations professionals in leadership positions, rather than PhD intellectuals, is a very positive trend for the ARI which I hope will continue in the future. This is not to say that the ARI board of 1990 was of poor quality, but that the current group is better equipped to carry out ARI's mission.

2. Based on the unprecedented success of the current ARI leadership, I believe that they are more than competent to make board-level decisions without threats from Dr. Peikoff or anyone else. Such threats are unnecessary and display a disregard for the board's track record of success and professionalism. While I am sure that the board can benefit from Dr. Peikoff's experience and philosophical expertise, his forcing a decision on the McCaskey issue by threatening to leave the ARI called into question the board's integrity. His behavior has led many to question whether Dr. Peikoff has de facto control and veto power over board decisions. I believe that it is primarily this aspect of the affair, along with Dr. Peikoff's harsh tone in his written responses, that has caused such an uproar in the Objectivist community.

3. The explosion of publicity of Ayn Rand's ideas, along with rapid technological advances in communication (Facebook, blogs, Twitter, etc.) has significantly decentralized the dissemination of Objectivist ideology. While the ARI is still HQ for the Objectivist movement, it is no longer the sole voice of rationality in today's culture. This, too, is a positive trend. For a number of reasons, I would encourage those interested in intellectual activism to strongly consider forming their own non-profit organizations without a strongly dependent relationship with the ARI. There are certainly benefits to associating one's organization with the ARI, but this is not the ideal set-up for every activist venture under the sun.

--Dan Edge

Objectivism in Trouble? Of Course Not!

2010-10-07T12:54:00.000-06:00

I've seen a number of eulogies for the ARI and the Objectivist movement on discussion boards around the web (in relation to the McCaskey controversy), and it's given me a happy new perspective on things.

The Objectivist movement is stronger than ever, as is the ARI. Consider how much money they get every year now, how often Objectivism is represented in the media, and how many more Oist professors there are in academia these days. Things are looking up. We now have professional level CEOs and PR guys representing Objectivism to the world. The Peikoff/Schwartz/Ridpath Era is not on the rise -- it's coming to an end. These are that era's last gasps, and everyone knows it. Including the folks at ARI.

You think the people working there don't know, don't acknowledge that some of Peikoff's statements are nuts/rude/poorly stated? Most of them acknowledge this, and will admit such privately. But would it really be to the benefit of Objectivism for half of the ARI staff to unite in a formal public denunciation of its founder for what amounts to a personality issue? Yeah, that'll happen right after the boards of Microsoft and Apple morally condemn Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. The fact is, Peikoff has meant as much or more to the Objectivist movement as either of those CEOs meant to their organizations. And he continues to make contributions in the form of his podcasts, among other things.

It's funny, before I read all these eulogies for the ARI and the Objectivist movement, I was a lot more concerned. Now that I see how ridiculous it sounds to anticipate a death knell for the ARI, I'm not worried at all. Peikoff too shall pass. And I'm certain he will be remembered primarily for his many great and noble deeds, not for things like this.

--Dan Edge

Adventures in Activism - Resolution

2010-09-20T13:51:00.002-06:00

Over a year ago, I was arrested in downtown Greenville, SC while protesting agaisnt the "Emergency" Curfew enforced by the Greenville City Council Nannies. Although it was a peaceful, lawful 1st Amendment protest -- and though all picketing ordinances were obeyed -- I was charged with two counts of "contributing the delinquency of a minor," with a maximum sentence of 6 years in prison. At the time, I was thrown in jail, condemned by many locals as a potential pedophile, betrayed by deceitful journalists at the Greenville News, and then railroaded through my Preliminary Hearing by a judge who had made up his mind ahead of time. (The full story is posted below.)

Today I found out that the city will agree to drop all charges against me related to the protest. There will be no trial. It's finally over.

I may have more to say about this later: reflections over the past year, follow-ups on the story, and the possibility of a 1983 suit, to name a few. But for now I'm just gonna exhale this stale, foul air that's been stuck in my lungs for over a year. And thank Galt for common sense.

--Dan Edge
-----------------------------
The following is a chronicle of the events preceding, during, and after the downtown protest I organized against the “emergency” curfew ordinance – events which led to my arrest for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." On Friday, 9/4, I read an article in The Greenville News announcing an “emergency” curfew ordinance enacted by Greenville City Council. Disgusted with the oft used justification to restrict the liberty of the responsible majority in response to the lawlessness of a deviant minority, frustrated with the lack of attention given to proper support of local law enforcement, and reminiscent about happy memories of enriching cultural experiences in Greenville’s nightlife as a minor, I resolved to write an editorial about the ordinance articulating my disapproval. In the process of writing the editorial, I realized that the “emergency” curfew ordinance presented a unique opportunity to uphold 1st Amendment Rights while demonstrating to all the folly of the Nanny State mentality. I began to consider organizing a protest, something I’d never done before. My first call was to City Hall. A gentleman in the Special Events Department referred me to Major Gary McLaughlin at the Greenville Police Department. I left a message on Mr. McLaughlin’s voice mail describing my intentions, then continued working on the editorial and hand bill I planned to distribute at the event. I realized that I needed to act fast in choosing a venue for the protest, but I did not want to proceed without first consulting with Law Enforcement. I called Greenville PD’s general dispatch number, and was put in contact with a member of the Communications Division there. This gentleman offered preliminary advice for how to execute the protest peacefully, but he told me that I would want to speak to someone else about it, and that I could expect a return call. Major Gary McLaughlin, also referred to (by me) as “Gentleman Good Cop,” returned my call a short time later. Mr. McLaughlin was courteous, knowledgeable, and professional – a true credit to his rank and uniform. He assured me that his department intended to protect any expression of 1st Amendment Rights. He advised me on appropriate options for venues, emailed me a copy of the City’s ordinances on picketing, and offered sound advice for ways to make the protest safe, legal, and effective. I emailed to him copies of the editorial I had written, the hand bill I intended to pass out at the protest, and the letter I had written to inform media and political outlets about the event. I sincerely thanked Major McLaughlin for all his help, on the phone and in email. Making his acquaintance was one of the highlights of my experience. Notably, he made no mention of any potential for me to be arrested for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." I spent the rest of my day Friday making copies of the editorial and hand bill, purchasing poster board and markers, and emailing media and political outlets about the event. I woke up the following morning excited about the prospects of the day. I looked forward to promoting: individual rights, a more significant police presence in downtown, and the numerous cultural benefits of the downtown Greenville nightlife. In the early afternoon, I received an email reply to my media announcement from Mr. Richard Walton, a journalist for The Greenville News who later contributed to an article covering the event. In the email, Mr. Walton requested that I call him to discus my plans for that evening, which I did. During the course of this conversation, I found that he was polite, respectful, and seemingly sincerely interested in my point of view. In response to his questions, I related to him some of the arguments presented in my editorial on the issue, which he had received as part of my media announcement. He said that he would be downtown Saturday night reporting on the curfew ordinance, and that he would look for me there. He did eventually find me just before 10pm in front of City Hall. Details of that encounter are described later in this chronicle. I arrived downtown at about 7:30pm, and began to distribute hand bills as I made my way to the front of City Hall, the venue I had chosen for the protest. When I got there, I saw concrete lamp fixtures that seemed ideal for posting announcements about the event. I began to tape hand bills, editorials, and a poster to the concrete lamp fixtures adjacent to City Hall. Just as I was affixing the last of the hand bills, I heard a voice that I’ve grown deeply to despise over the past 24 hours – that of Mr. [name omitted pending further consideration], a bicycle cop who’s unprofessional and unconscionable actions would lead to my arrest some hours later. To Mr. [omitted], a near perfect foil for Gentleman Good Cop McLaughlin, I have assigned the moniker “Bicycle Bad Cop.” Bicycle Bad Cop’s sharply-toned introductory comments boomed over my shoulder: “I’m going to watch you take every single one of these down and throw them in the trash. Right now!” I turned to see a threatening grimace flaming from an animated middle-aged figure. This, I thought, was a man who relished in intimidating civilians. He seemed almost disappointed when I told him I didn’t know that this kind of posting was illegal, and immediately began taking everything down. This I did in short order, occasionally enduring Bad Cop’s rambling lectures about “doing his job” intermixed with overt threats to burden me with a citation. Any attempt to discuss the matter was perceived as “back talk,” quickly interrupted with said threats and lectures. After removing and disposing of all the items I had posted, I proceeded to the West End of Greenville, distributing hand bills and engaging in debate along the way. In distributing protest materials, I did not discriminate based on age, sex, or race. I handed them out to everyone, and found that opinions on the issue pro and con were roughly a 50/50 spread. As I reached the entrance to Reedy River Park, the younger demographic became more prominent. Many youths, above and below the age of consent, expressed concerted agreement, and some said they intended to attend the demonstration. The police presence in the West End was impressive – I saw no less than 10 officers in the vicinity of Reedy River Park, many of whose vehicles were parked in the middle of the road on the Main St. bridge over the Reedy. This, I thought, is the appropriate magnitude of rights-protecting civil servants to control the specter of civil disorder that necessarily must accompany explosive commercial growth, the sort of which the West End has been a prime example in recent years. In the course of distributing information and debating with West End patrons, I had the opportunity to discuss the issue with a few police officers who were manning the fort. One officer in particular – an Asian gentleman with a confident voice and professional demeanor – offered his views on the subject, which were contrary to my own. While I disagreed with his conclusions, I greatly appreciated his efforts to articulate his position in a firm, respectful, and thoughtful manner. Other of Greenville’s finest listened on, but none came to the forefront to concur with my views. In several discrete (read “unofficial”) conversations with police officers over the past few days, I’ve discovered that a significant number, perhaps a majority, agree with my position – that the answer to this “emergency” is more and better funded cops, not more laws. I made this point in my editorial, but it bears emphasis: if the City had kept police funding on par with the explosive growth of the West End, this issue would likely never have become an “emergency.” I suddenly ran out of hand bills, and walked briskly back to my car to get more. As I passed City Hall (whether on the way to my car, or on the way back, I do not recall), I was approached by Bicycle Bad Cop and another officer who I believe was his immediate superior (Bad Cop Boss?). This new officer indicated his intent to allow the protest to take place, given that City picketing ordinances were obeyed. I assured him that I had reviewed the ordinances provided by Major McLaughlin and fully intended to comply. Our discussion was amicable until he asked me if I planned to instruct any minors to leave the protest at 10pm. “No,” I said, “In all honesty I planned this as an act of civil disobedience. I will inform any minors present of the content of the curfew ordinance, and if they ask my opinion I would advise them to stay.” Bad Cop Boss then became agitated, informing me that if I proceeded as planned, I would put myself and any minors in attendance at risk of detention or arrest. He asked if I was willing to go to jail for this cause. “Yes,” was my firm reply, though I indicated that I didn’t expect it would come to that, as the protest was planned with the knowledge and advisement of the Greenville PD and was intended to be extraordinarily docile by any modern standard of protest intensity. (This exchange constitutes, in my mind, the entire body of evidence which could be used to “prove” my guilt. Neither of these officers, nor anyone else, ever observed me actively advising the course of civil disobedience to anyone.) But Boss’s words resonated in my mind, and I was forced to reconsider. For the next several minutes, as I walked back along the Main St. drag towards Reedy River Park, I did not speak to anyone or distribute any hand bills. For a few seconds, I considered abandoning the entire project and simply standing by at the protest site to inform attendants that it was canceled. But I had already distributed so many pamphlets, and had invested so much of my heart and soul into this, that I decided instead to alter my approach in announcing the protest to young-appearing individuals. From that point on, whenever I spoke to people about the protest, I warned them that there might be trouble if they were minors and stayed there after 10pm. I explained the letter of the curfew ordinance, based on the information supplied by the City Council’s website. My understanding of the ordinance, which I communicated to all listeners, was this: minors are not allowed to be in downtown after 10pm without supervision of a legal guardian. Young-appearing individuals may be subject to police inquiry and asked to provide proof of age. If no identification is available, or if an individual readily admits that he is underage, then the police will ask him to leave the area and give him the opportunity to do so. If the individual refuses to leave or comes back, then he may be subject to detention at City Hall until his guardian[s] arrive to pick him up. I advised any young-appearing potential protesters that they would likely be questioned by police in reference to the curfew ordinance. When questioned by police, I told them, they should have the opportunity to make a decision: either leave immediately without consequence, or stay and risk detainment. I made no suggestion as to which alternative was preferable for any particular individual. In one or two cases, in response to direct questions, I confessed that if I were a minor present at the protest, I would consider “sitting-in” as a form of civil disobedience, and risk detainment. But I did not actively recommend this course of action to anyone at any time. I implored those present to use their own judgment, and to take into consideration the wishes and wisdom of their parents. As I walked back to City Hall, my confidence began to mount. I believed that this protest could be executed peacefully and to positive effect. The wind in my sails waned significantly, however, when by 9:40pm rain had begun to fall and no other protesters had showed up. As I continued to make my protest signs, I resolved to take heart in my efforts no matter the result. Even in the worst case scenario I could then imagine: that I would stand alone in the rain with a sign in each arm, a seeming raving lunatic in a sea of Greenville patrons – I would still take pride in what I had attempted to accomplish. A few minutes later, my spirits rose again as a few passersby offered to help make signs. They were on their way to a previous appointment and couldn’t stay, but I greatly appreciated their help and moral support. A few minutes after that, a pair of young gentlemen walked by who expressed excitement at what I was planning. I had already made at least ten signs, and I told them to feel free to hold them up proudly, or to write any message they chose (barring profanity) on blank poster-boards with the permanent Sharpie markers I had brought along. They each opted for a pre-made sign and held them high for the viewing of auto and pedestrian traffic (while being careful not to obstruct such traffic, per my request). One of the young men commented that he had never before exercised his 1st Amendment Rights, and told me through grinning teeth that doing so “[felt] really good.” If nothing else positive ever comes out of the events of this past Saturday night, I consider this one sentiment to be well-worth my night in jail. By about 9:55pm, at least a dozen individuals had stopped to pick up signs or make their own. We had a burgeoning protest on our hands. This is when I first saw Mr. Richard Walton of The Greenville News. Or rather, he saw me and asked if I was Dan Edge the protest organizer. I pled guilty as charged, and he began to interview me in a manner similar to our previous phone conversation. Consequently, I gave similar answers, along with extrapolations and clarifications gleaned from the evening’s experiences. At one point, I noticed a pair of police officers approach the protesters nearest me and advise them to stay within a certain area, so as not to obstruct pedestrian traffic. I paused my interview with Mr. Walton to ask the officers to repeat their instructions, so I could make sure that I fully understood their efforts to maintain order. I felt that it was, in large part, my personal responsibility to ensure that the protest proceeded within the bounds of City law. When hecklers in a passing car elicited a profane reply from one of the protesters, I made it clear to the young man that any use of profanity would be counter-productive to the cause. I joked that any lawlessness would elicit a response from the 6’ tall, bald redneck that planned the event. Though my comments were purely in jest, as I had complete confidence that the cops could and would prevent any outbreak of civil unrest, I was more than willing to help prevent and contain any lawlessness myself, in the extraordinarily unlikely event that such was necessary. At about 10:15pm, I walked with Mr. Walton over to another group of protesters who had taken station in the area adjacent to the Poinsett Hotel. I recognized one of the non-protester onlookers as a gentleman who had expressed contrary views to mine during my previous romp around the city. I jokingly suggested that Mr. Walton interview this “counter-protester” for an alternative view. The gentleman responded that my position was “too stupid” to warrant debate, and that the “kids” sitting near him were too young and ignorant to offer any worthwhile opinion on the matter. At this point I addressed the group of young men, two of whom were destined to be detained by Bicycle Bad Cop, saying: “In my experience, if someone criticizes your beliefs, not by making a reasoned argument, but by claiming that you are too stupid or ignorant to wager an opinion,” at this point I spoke a little louder to drown out the “counter-protester” turned heckler’s derogatory comments, “then the best course of action is to ignore his words, as if nothing has been said.” Which, indeed, nothing has – nothing worthy of reply, anyway. I continued to talk with Mr. Walton, the clock now reaching critical mass, approaching 10:25pm. This is when the proverbial dung hit the draft. Bicycle Bad Cop, seeing his opportunity to engage in a tour-de-force of rampaging rights-trampling, burst onto the scene. In fact, many police officers had arrived in short order, and they began to make inquiries of the youthful-looking men and women regarding their age. Several admitted that they were minors, were asked to leave, and did so immediately and peacefully. The two young men who were first to pick up posters in protest, in my view learning a valuable lesson in 1st Amendment expression, were the first to leave. The smiles thrown my way as they departed, posters still in hand, were to me another highlight of the evening’s events. But then things started to turn ugly. Bicycle Bad Cop roared toward the stage where three young men sat holding signs and demanded that they submit to immediate police inquiry…”NOW!” I quickly found that “YOU!” and “NOW!” were Bad Cop’s two favorite words, especially when bellowed at high volume along with a withering, threatening gaze. Over the next 60 seconds, one could easily characterize Bad Cop’s seething string of commands as a generic, cartoon-inspired cacophony of malevolence: “YOU! [Yabba Dabba Do It!] NOW!” And he found ample opportunity to indulge in his belligerent manner of issuing intimidating commandments. Since the next few moments are critical to the outcome of the evening, I will chronicle them as accurately and specifically as I can. After confirming the guilt implicit in their age, Bad Cop addressed the three young men: Bicycle Bad Cop (BBC): “YOU! Get out of here! NOW! YOU! [Addressing other bystanders] Get Back! NOW!” Frightened Young Men: “OK, OK…We’re leaving.” This next serious of events is particularly crucial to understanding how the evening unfolded as it did. The three young men rose to leave, but one of them found himself temporarily blocked in. His two friends had identified creases at their flanks and escaped, but other police responded to Bad Cop’s bellowing and began to close in. The remaining youth, eyeing an opening in the melee, rose to leave with haste. Literally less than 10 seconds had passed in the interim. But then he made a critical mistake, at least in the eyes of the BBC: he turned to face me, said “Thanks,” handed me back the poster I had given him earlier, then whirled around to make good his escape. Apparently, this was all the provocation needed to effect his detainment. The proceeding moments went by with confusing rapidity, filled with more “YOUs” and “NOWs” than I care to count, but I remember them well enough for an accurate telling of the events. Here is a transcript from memory following the unfortunate youth’s unforgivable sin of offering his thanks before departing: ------------------------------------------- Future Detainee #1: Thanks. [Hands protest poster to me and turns to leave.] Bicycle Bad Cop (BBC): YOU! You are now being detained! I told you to leave! You are being detained! Now Detainee #1: Are you serious? Sir, I was just trying to leave, really! Are you serious? I wasn’t… BBC: Shut your mouth! You are being detained! Dan Edge: Hey! He was just trying to leave. He was just saying “thanks” and handing me the pos… BBC: YOU! [Addressing me] Step away, right NOW! I said right NOW! YOU! [Now addressing Mr. Walton] Back away, right NOW! YOU! [Addressing other random passersby] step back NOW! Detainee #1: [Continues to express shocked disbelief, declaring his innocence and his intent to comply with BBC’s threatening commands. His “back talk” was met with more intimidating verbal assaults from BBC until he was seemingly cowed.] Future Detainee #2: [Arrives back on the scene less than a minute later, having noted that his friend was not in tow.] Hey, what happened? We were just leaving… BBC: YOU! You were told to leave! You are now being detained! Now Detainee #2: What? But I was just… BBC: Shut your mouth! You were told to leave and refused! You are being detained! Step over there, NOW! Dan Edge: [To Mr. Walton] Can you believe this? That kid was just trying to leave! All he did was say “thanks” and give me the poster… BBC: [Now addressing me] YOU! Shut your mouth! NOW! Stand right there! Don’t move! I’ll deal with YOU in a minute! Dan Edge: By what right are you detaining me here? By what right do you order me not to speak? What am I being charged with? BBC: We’ll figure that out in a minute. I’m going to go deal with these minors, who are now under detention, then I’ll talk to my superior and we’ll figure out what you’re being charged with. But right now, if you know what’s good for you, you’ll sit right there and keep your mouth shut. Earlier, you said you respected my uniform and my need to do my job. I’m just doing my job. Just sit down right there! NOW! Dan Edge: Listen, this guy [referring to Mr. Walton] is a journalist. Are you saying I’m not allowed to speak to the press? BBC: You are now in my custody. You can either sit right there and keep your mouth shut, or I will put you in hand cuffs and throw you in a squad car right now. Is that what you want? Dan Edge: Hmmm… [Considering the inevitability of arrest] I’ll have to think about that… BBC: There’s nothing to think about! I’ve taken you into my custody! Now I’m going to deal with those detainees, and I’ll be back to deal with YOU in a minute. Sit right there! Mr. Walton: [Stands idly by, complying with the order to step back a few feet, a seeming look of shocked disbelief on his face.] Other of Greenville’s Finest: [Some, especially younger officers, share the look of shocked disbelief, but quickly come to the aid of their colleague Bicycle Bad Cop, and do their duty to maintain order in the chaos and confusion.] Adjacent Officer: [Addressing Mr. Walton and a camera crew setting up nearby] I’m gonna have to ask you folks to step back a bit. [Continues to give firm but polite instructions.] ------------------------------------------- After this, I was escorted to a squad car, hand-cuffed, and hauled off to jail, where I spent most of the next 17 hours in a detainment cell drunk tank. My experiences there are potentially relevant, but not critical to the essence of the story outlined above. I may continue this chronicle in the near future, and tell the rest of the tale up until my release from jail Sunday afternoon. I challenge any of those present – including police officers, journalists, the detained youths, or uninvolved bystanders – to dispute the accuracy of this version of the events. I may not have remembered everything perfectly (it would be impossible for me to recall every single word said in unfailing detail), but this is what happened. I assert that this telling of Saturday night’s unfortunate events is the most sincere, most accurate, most detailed account that will ever be presented – which is why I felt so strongly the need to disclose the truth. I have more to say on this matter, including the lessons learned from these past few days’ experiences. I acknowledge some errors of judgment on my part in planning this protest; in particular I wish I had had the forethought to schedule it a few hours earlier so that minors could attend without risk of being detained. I will be posting another article within the next few days, outlining my preliminary evaluations of the police’s response to what happened (it is my contention that the vast majority of Greenville’s finest acted most honorably, with a distinction proper to their uniforms), the media reports, particularly of those who were present at the incident (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt at present, but it seems to me that some crucially relevant facts about what happened were conspicuously absent from news reports), and the media and public responses I have witnessed thus far. Thanks for reading! --Dan Edge

Critiquing Philly Kendall's Deep Thoughts on Relationships

2009-12-21T10:05:00.003-05:00

On my last trip to New York City, I had the pleasure of meeting fellow blogger Kendall J for lunch as I was passing through Philadelphia. Kendall and I used to kick around ideas quite a bit over at Objectivism Online Forum, and I’ve been a fan of his blog for several years. I was very much looking forward to meeting him, and he did not disappoint. The greater part of our enjoyable lunch was consumed by a discussion of an upcoming post he was planning on relationships. He wrote that very interesting post soon thereafter, and I’m finally getting around to responding to it, as promised.

Kendall’s post, titled How I’ve Changed – Part 1, Personal Relationships, reads at first like a public journal entry. He takes a bird’s eye view of how his perspective on relationships has changed over the years, and attempts to analyze the data of his experiences. The best summary of Kendall’s conclusions can be found at the end of the post, in his effort to “operationalize the principles” he’s learned about relationships. Here are his shorthand “operationlized principles”:

1. Find people of the highest character you can.
2. Know why you like them.
3. Seek to understand them.
4. Act to express your admiration, respect, and love.

This essentialized advice is accurate and powerful in more ways than Kendall covers in his post. I want to focus on one of Kendall’s points that particularly hits home with me: that a great relationship, whether a friendship or romance, is a value that one must act to gain and sustain. (I found it very cool that Kendall and I raised this same point in different contexts in two different articles that were posted around the same time.)

Kendall’s operationalized principles are in fact principles of action. To put Kendall’s principles into my own words: 1) People of high character do not just appear in your life – you must seek them out. 2) For those individuals with whom you already have an emotional connection, work to understand the nature and cause of that emotional connection. 3) Continually evaluate your relationships to more fully understand the nature of the values you have gained. 4) Using this greater understanding of your relationships, creatively express the admiration and love that naturally grows from a properly valued friend/lover.

Not only are these principles of action true, they are interrelated and reciprocal. In order to find people of high character, it is necessary actively to evaluate new people that you meet. When meeting new people, one evaluates both the potential value of the new person (are they of high moral character?), and he evaluates his own psychology (what aspects of this new person are my emotions responding to, and why?). If one actively and continually evaluates his relationships, then he will find many attributes of his friend/lover that are worthy of praise and admiration, which he then can express in a variety of ways. Expressing praise to a friend/lover concretizes that person’s value in your life, which can further cement your emotional connection to another. The relationship grows stronger, both emotionally and in terms of explicitly shared values. All this takes work! And that is exactly Kendall’s point. I very much agree.

-------------------------

On an entirely different note, I’d like to issue a challenge to Kendall for any follow-up to his article: to concretize his operational principle regarding chemistry. (I preliminarily define good chemistry as “the existence of complimentary differences and complementary similarities in optional value judgments between two people, and the positive emotional response generated from these factors.”) In his article, Kendall argues that, “Where chemistry is concerned, it’s ok to seek more optional factors, but seek out those that ultimately stem from character…” I challenge Kendall to explain, by means of examples, what exactly it means for an optional factor to “ultimately stem from character?” It’s not that I disagree with Kendall on this point, in fact I generally agree with him. But this issue remains the biggest gap in his article.

Kendall is writing here about optional value judgments -- individual choices regarding career, hobbies, humor, artistic tastes, etc. He uses the example of meeting a woman who loves the Philadelphia Phillies. Assuming that one is also a huge Phillies fan, how much weight ought that shared optional value have in evaluating the potential of a relationship? I’m assuming that Kendall uses the Phillies fan as an example of an optional attribute that does not “ultimately stem from character.” But why, Kendall? Why is being a Phillies fan not an expression of philosophical values? And what would qualify as an attribute stemming from character? Being an avid chess player? Loving Bach over Beethoven? Choosing a career as a chef over a career as a painter?

In my view, any legitimate optional value judgment ultimately stems from character. By definition, an optional value judgment is an individual choice one makes which is fully moral within a range. For instance, when choosing a career, one may ethically choose to be a banker, a chemist, a teacher, etc., but not a bank-robber, terrorist bomb maker, or televangelist. This includes one’s choice of hobbies, favorite baseball team, taste in jokes, etc. Morally optional choices that individuate elements of one’s character have value by virtue of the fact that they make one unique. (I argue this point more extensively in Part II of my essay The Psycho-epistemology of Sexuality).

For this reason, I would place a higher emphasis on the importance of chemistry. Kendall and I agree on the importance of finding individuals of high moral character, but I don’t think that this diminishes the importance of having good chemistry with people in one’s life, especially with lovers.

-------------------------

Kendall and I hit it off from the beginning when we met in Philly. Honestly, I expected him to be a little dorkier based on his online writing. But in person, Kendall is actually a very cool dude. I mean: he’s not only cool, he’s a dude. He’s friendly, funny, and intelligent, but it wasn’t foregone conclusion that I could quickly wrestle him to the ground using only my left hand (a very positive characteristic in male friends and Spanish swordsmen). I look forward to Kendall’s next post in this series, and I hope to meet him again the next time I travel to Yankee-ville.

--Dan Edge

Get Over Yourself!, Part II

2009-11-29T14:20:00.006-05:00

or: Selfishness vs. Self-Centeredness in Maintaining Friendships

Way back in October of 2008, I wrote an article titled Get Over Yourself!, or Selfishness vs. Self-Centeredness in Meeting New People. In that article, I contrasted the approaches of the rationally selfish man vs. the self-centered man in meeting new people. The selfish man, I explained, treats each new person as a potential value to be explored; while the self-centered man sees new people primarily as a potential receptacle for information about himself. The selfish man endeavors to make new people comfortable and asks them questions about their lives and interests; the self-centered man looks for opportunities to soliloquy about his own life and interests. The selfish man tends to make friends, influence people, nail the interview, and get the girl; the self-centered man comes across as arrogant and annoying.

Since the conflation of selfishness and self-centeredness is relatively common among Objectivists, I had always intended to follow-up on my 2008 article to further explore this widely misunderstood issue. And over a year later, it’s high time to do so. This time, I will contrast the approaches of the selfish vs. the self-centered man in maintaining friendships. I will conclude the series (ideally before 2011!) with a discussion of these principles in relation to long term romantic love relationships.

Long term friendships are among the most significant values one can attain in his lifetime. Their survival value is crucial in many ways, including: emotional support, psychological visibility, specializations in different hobbies and areas of knowledge (allowing one more effectively to expand his horizons), and as deep wells of spiritual fuel. So critical a value warrants special study, specifically how to gain and keep it. In the last article of this series, I discussed some methods of gaining and earning this value. This article will focus on how to keep it. So: how does the rationally self-interested man maintain friendships?

First, the selfish man acknowledges that long term friendships are indeed values which require maintenance. A friendship is not a static entity automatically formed and sustained given the existence of shared values. It requires work to create, build, and sustain. The selfish man understands this and looks for ways to build and nurture his friendships. The self-centered man does not understand this. He believes, in effect, that friendships spring into existence, grow in depth, fade away, or collapse into enmity -- all without action on his part. He does not consider ways in which he can build a friendship or contribute to its growth. He is often not even aware of the state of his own relationships: Are they healthy and thriving or sick and dying? He does not know, nor does he think it in his self-interest to care.

The selfish man places value on the individuating characteristics of his long term friends. By individuating characteristics, I mean those legitimate optional values (hobbies, interests, career, etc.) that make each man unique. Just as the selfish man initiates relationships by showing sincere interest and asking questions, so he continues to show interest and ask questions about his friends’ values throughout the life of a friendship. He does this even if he does not share those particular values. Such questions go a long way in adding depth to the relationship, even with regard to a friend’s minor hobbies.

For instance, I have no particular interest in World of Warcraft (WoW), but I have a good friend, Nancy, who absolutely loves it. When I talk to her on the phone, or visit her apartment, I often ask how her Blood Elf is doing, what new weapons the Elf has acquired, if she’s created any new characters, if she’s gotten into any new similar games, etc. And believe me, she can spend many happy hours waxing philosophical about WoW! This is a good example, because knowledge of WoW does not otherwise improve my life -- I don’t learn any special life lessons from these conversations. But I do gain a value from taking the time to talk to her about WoW: I am learning more about what makes this woman unique. Nancy would not be Nancy if she wasn’t a fanatic RPG enthusiast.

But her love of RPGs is only a small part of Nancy’s personality. With a friend’s more significant values, like career or children, it’s much more important to keep tabs on these things. For instance, I have no particular interest in the World of Wall St. (I don’t even read the Business section of the Newspaper), but my good friend Sherry has dedicated her life to it. She is a superstar in her field, and I am very proud to be her friend. But I would never have known how passionate she is, how competent a businesswoman, how brilliant her business acumen, had I not taken the time to talk to her about her work life. I take pleasure in hearing about the World of Wall St. from Sherry’s perspective. I share her elation when she closes an important business deal, and I share her pain when a client pulls out at the last minute. Gaining knowledge about the business world and her role in it serves to strengthen our relationship.

In a good friendship, these kinds of efforts are reciprocal. My close friends also take stake in my interests, my career, my field of study, etc. Most of them don’t regularly attend Slam poetry performances, but they are always interested to hear any new poems I write. They will often read my essays and comment on them. They will spring to my defense if I am wrongfully arrested. These efforts do not go unnoticed. These are the kinds of friends who contribute the spiritual fuel to keep me going. They actively love, encourage, and inspire me.

The self-centered man, by contrast, does not expend much effort to maintain his friendships. To him, “selfishness” means that any friendships ought to focus on his own interests, his own life, his own career. He is very happy to tell friends about his values, but he usually doesn’t take the time to ask about theirs. He will tolerate friends telling him about their lives, but learning about them is not a primary objective to him. He doesn’t seek out friends whose interests differ from his own; he has no desire to broaden his horizons. Instead, he thinks that friendships ought to focus on “shared interests,” i.e., on interests he already has. He may ask Nancy about her Blood Elf in World of Warcraft, but only if he is already an RPG fan. And even then, his inquiry is usually only an excuse to pontificate on the virtues of his own Orc Beserker.

With regards to emotional support, again the rationally selfish man makes a point to contribute to the emotional health of his friends. He maintains an awareness of his friends’ emotional states, and can usually tell if they are proud or discouraged, joyous or depressed. Just as he relishes in sharing his friends’ triumphs, so he gladly shoulders their pain in difficult times.

For instance, I often talk to my friends about their romantic lives. I can often tell when a friend is unhappy with his current romantic relationship, even before the friend recognizes it himself. This is not at all uncommon. The outside perspective of a good friend can be invaluable in helping one understand relationship issues. But this kind of understanding does not come automatically. It is only because I take interest in my friends’ love lives that I am able to provide appropriate emotional support and friendly advice. I can share their hopeful excitement when love begins to bloom, and offer sympathy when a promising relationship disintegrates. I look for opportunities to be there for my friends, to hear their stories, to take part in their emotional lives.

But to the self-centered man, taking stake in his friends’ emotional lives seems sacrificial or altruistic. He acknowledges that sharing his own emotional pain with a friend can have a positive cathartic effect, and he may lean on them in difficult times. But when roles are reversed, he would rather not endure a friend’s tears over some heartache which he does not share. Why put a bummer on an otherwise pleasant day? The self-centered man may be happy to share in his friend’s triumphs at work, particularly if he shares an interest in his friend’s profession. But when sorrow strikes, he prefers to keep his distance. He is the classic fair-weather friend.

I don’t need to tell you which kind of person, the selfish man or the self-centered man, makes a better friend. Everyone has at some point been exposed to both types, and anyone could tell you that the rationally self-interested man makes the better business partner, the better lover, and overall the better person to have in one’s life. We seek out those who not only share our moral values, but who also take sincere interest in our individuating characteristics. Most of us tend to avoid those who take the self-centered approach, those who take interest only in those aspects of one’s personality that he already shares. We seek out friends who relish sharing in both our joys and pains, and we eschew those for whom emotional support is a one-way street. The selfish man is the kind of life-long friend who can become like a family member. The self-centered man usually doesn’t rise above the status of “temporary activity partner.”

Over time, long term friendships can grow into some of the highest values in one’s life. Whether one acknowledges it or not, we need deep friendships; they have a survival value which is difficult to quantify. In theory, it is easy to make the mistake that being independent means that one doesn’t need friends. In some respects, this is true. One ought not need anyone else to provide him with epistemological certainty, productive independence, or self-esteem. But friendships -- and to a greater degree romantic relationships -- so enrich our lives that they deserve a high degree of focus, consideration, and sustained effort.

In part III of this series, which I hope to publish with a few weeks, I will apply these same principles to romantic love relationships. How does the rationally self-interested man treat his lover at home, in the bedroom, with family, and in public? How does the self-centered man act in these situations? Which type of man makes a better lover, and why?

As always, thanks for reading, and I look forward to any comments!

--Dan Edge

Master Edge?

2009-11-29T10:13:00.002-05:00

I am very pleased to announce that I have been accepted into the Marriage and Family Therapy program at Converse College in Spartanburg, SC. If all goes well, I will be a fully licensed Master of this subject by the close of 2011. Wish me luck!

--Dan Edge

Leonids Meteor Shower Tonight!

2009-11-16T12:51:00.001-05:00

Tonight, the Earth passes through the Leonids Meteor Shower. It will be even more visible -- more beautiful -- from more places than the Perseid Meteor shower was. The best viewing time is from 11pm tonight until dawn (the evening of Nov. 16 / morning of Nov. 17), though it should also be visible tomorrow evening. I stayed up all night to witness another natural wonder when the Earth passed through the Perseid Comet's trail. I chronicled my experience in a blog post, reproduced below. I highly recommend "attending" this event. It is more than worth the price of admission -- one sleepless night. This may be the best meteor shower of your lifetime, something you can tell your kids about. So go see it! And share it with someone you love...

------------------------------

A Benevolent Universe -- The Perseid Meteor Shower

While I have many reservations about plugging my neural interface into the Face-Borg Hivemind, it does have its benefits. Yesterday, an old high school friend posted on his Facebook Wall an article about the 2009 Perseid Meteor Shower. I had never witnessed a meteor shower before, and my interest was piqued. To my great pleasure, I found that astronomers regard Perseid as the "granddaddy of all meteor showers." Even better, the peak viewing time for Perseid was last night (Tuesday, August 11), the same day I discovered its existence.

I sprang into action, gathering up snacks, bug spray, blanket, pillows, flashlight, and my trusty knife. When considering where to go to experience Perseid, one location immediately came to mind: Bald Rock. Just as its name implies, Bald Rock is a giant, treeless rock face in the Blue Ridge Mountains which faces east towards the rising sun. From this lofty perch, one can see the cities of Greenville and Spartanburg, both over 30 miles away. There is hardly any ambient light in the surrounding area, making it a perfect spot for admiring the stars.

I got there at around 10:45pm and, despite its remote location, at least 15 others were already on the Rock, waiting for the show to begin. Some groups of people kept their distance from others, but most walked about confidently in the dark, adjusting their eyes to the moonlight and connecting with others who had come to witness the event. People were chatting, singing, playing guitars, and cuddling -- but after a while, nearly all were flat on their backs gazing at the expanse of sky above them. The cloud cover was thick at times, but at around 11:30pm, windows of clear sky began to appear. I didn't take any pictures, but here's an image similar to what I saw:

I stayed on the Rock until around 2:45am, when the cloud cover became more dense and showed no signs of clearing up. Many people stayed on the mountain all night, laying either on blankets or bare rock, sleeping peacefully under the stars.

While last night was the peak viewing for Perseid, hundreds of meteors will still be visible over the next few evenings. I highly recommend this experience, even if it means a groggy beginning to the following morning.

What a joy it is to live in such a beautiful universe, and how wonderful it is to share this beauty with other human beings!

--Dan Edge

Harbinger of Terror at Fort Hood

2009-11-06T20:54:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, November 5, 2009, a lone gunman murdered 13 people and injured dozens more at the Fort Hood military base in Texas. The shooter was Nadal Malik Hasan, a Major in the U.S. Army. When news broke that a U.S. military base had been attacked, the story immediately saturated major media outlets. As details trickled in, journalists and politicians began to analyze the data. What had happened here?

Within hours, it became public knowledge that Major Hasan was the shooter, and that he was a Muslim who had spoken out against U.S. military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. While a few news outlets reported this information, for the most part these facts were purposefully ignored by the press. One CNN reporter commented that “it would be irresponsible of us to speculate about any possible motives for these attacks,” and that “right now, our only thoughts should be for the families of those who were killed.” This was the attitude taken by most news outlets, and by all politicians I saw interviewed yesterday.

President Obama, in his initial comments about the attacks, said that his “immediate thoughts and prayers [were] with the wounded and with the families of the fallen and with those who live and serve at Fort Hood.” Though the President must have known about the shooter’s identity and ideological motives at this point, nowhere in his speech did Obama mention the words “Islamic” or “terrorism.”

Like most Americans, I was saddened when I heard the news of the Fort Hood attack. But also like most Americans, my “immediate thoughts” on the issue included the vital question: Was this an act of terrorism? Why haven’t President Obama, the Governor of Texas, or any other political leaders raised the issue of Hasan’s ideological motivation for these attacks? Why has the press (for the most part) ignored this issue? The FBI quickly noted on Thursday that the Fort Hood murders had “no known nexus to terrorism.” They said this within hours of the attack, before Hasan had even been publicly identified as the shooter. Why the hasty public statement dissociating the Fort Hood attack from Islamic Terrorism?

While this was not an act of foreign aggression, a critical part of the story here is that Hasan was motivated by the same violent philosophy as most of the political leaders in the Muslim world. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and many other nations are dominated by supporters of militant Islam. It is these nations which now pose the greatest threat to the free world.

But the United States has so far been unable to win its “War on Terror,” a war it wages against backwards nations without a tenth of her military might. The public response to the Fort Hood shootings provides insight as to why we are losing this fight.

Western journalists, diplomats – and above all, political leaders – refuse properly to identify the enemy: proponents of militant Islam. It is not just the cave-dwelling, goat riding bunch of murderous Theocrats in Afghanistan who pose a threat to us. It is the Mulsim governments who support these terrorists, materially and otherwise. It is the millions of Muslims worldwide who cheer for them every time they claim a new victim.

Not every Muslim is my enemy. If a Muslim man – like the average American Christian – refuses to take some aspects of his religion seriously; if he opposes the integration of state and religion; if he denounces the motivations, objectives, and tactics of militant Islamists around the world; then he is not my enemy. But if he does support these things, then he is my enemy, and a nation full of people like him is a serious threat to my life.

The sooner the West is willing to identify the enemy, the sooner we can fight and defeat him.

--Dan Edge

Dr. Yaron Brook on "Capitalism Without Guilt"

2009-11-05T13:57:00.003-05:00

This past Tuesday, November 3rd, I attended Dr. Yaron Brook's talk "Capitalism Without Guilt" at Georgia Tech's downtown Atlanta campus. The turnout was amazing; there must have been over 100 attendees, most of them students. There were a few dissenters in the audience who surfaced during the question period, along with more than a few Objectivist faithful, like myself. But the strongest contingent appeared to be students who had heard of Ayn Rand, who had heard about her radical political views, and wanted to learn more. Brook's lecture was perfect for this group of people -- in fact, it specifically targeted them.

Brook is famously knowledgeable about financial and economic issues. His life and work experience qualify him as an expert in these matters, which is why so many financial news venues have had him on as a guest. So when Brook presents his version of how and why the mixed economy failed us over the past few years (and decades and centuries), he is extraordinarily convincing. He talked about government intervention in the housing and banking industries which lead directly to the problems we face today. He talked about various price controls attempted throughout the decades, and how and why they have failed. He talked about the biggest, most complex, and most destructive price control of them all: the Fed's control of interest rates. But as usual, Dr. Brook found a way to relate all of this information, not only to politics, but to morality.

A good 1/2 of Brook's talk was about morality, which may come a a surprise to those unfamiliar with Brook's lecturing style or with the ARI's general strategy in disseminating a philosophy of freedom. This continuing focus on morality, in my view, is what makes Brook (and other ARI speakers) so effective. This lecture was about economics, finance, politics, capitalism, etc., but Brook kept coming back to the moral defense of capitalism. Even pro-capitalists find it difficult to endorse free markets on moral grounds. Why, he asks? Because the predominant Judeo-Christian ethics of altruism conflicts directly with the individualistic ethics which necessarily must underlie a capitalist system. Brook addresses this conflict head on. And I'm lovin' it!

Don't just argue that socialized medicine is impractical, he says -- argue that it is fundamentally immoral! Same with banking regulations, Medicare, Social Security, etc. While it's true that these statist policies are always economically impractical and destructive, the primary objection to them is that they violate individual rights, and are therefore immoral. Brook gets to the heart of the matter, and is not afraid proudly to endorse the virtue of rational self-interest.

I was very pleased with Brook's talk, and with his handling of questions afterward. Brook is an excellent communicator, and a strong leader in the fight for freedom in the US. Keep it up, Brook!

Aside from the lecture itself, I had a great time with friends, old and new. Thanks to all for making my Georgia/Athens romp so memorable!

--Dan Edge

Cold Turkey

2009-10-30T12:36:00.003-05:00

I had intended to finish an article today, but I couldn't do it because my mind is going crazy. Why? Because it's been over 40 hours since I've smoked a cigarette. I went from smoking about a pack a day to quitting cold turkey. That's what I did last time, and it worked for over three years, until I started going through a divorce. Then I started smoking regularly again. I knew I'd have to quit again at some point.

Yesterday morning, I started thinking about how tough it was going to be to subsist on student loans for 2 years. Plus, I realized that a lot of smokin' hot women won't even consider dating a smoker. So, instead of smoking my first cigarette of the morning at 8:30am yesterday, instead I threw away my whole pack. My mind and hands have been going nuts ever since for want of something to obsess over. After a few more days, it shouldn't be so uncomfortable. And I'll finish that blog post I promised myself I was going to write. Until then, this post will have to do it.

--Dan Edge

Notes From the Edge - Episode 1!

2009-10-22T14:22:00.006-05:00

I listened to Dr. Diana Hsieh's intellectual podcast "Rationally Selfish Radio" for the first time today, and it inspired me finally to kick off my own podcast, which I'm calling "Notes From the Edge." Appropriately enough, my first podcast is a response to some issues Diana raised in Episode #18 of her podcast, regarding demoting a relationship from a romance to friendship.

I wrote an article about this several years ago, in which I focused on the importance of reorienting one's thoughts of his former lover such that she is no longer an object of sexual desire. This is dificult to do, but can be very rewarding; former lovers can make some of the best friends.

I welcome comments on this, my first podcast. Thanks to Dr. Lady Hsieh for the inspiration!

--Dan Edge

Temporary Silence

2009-10-21T17:46:00.002-05:00

I’ve been holding back writing anything about my trial for the past few days because I wanted to consult legal counsel first. I’ve been in touch with several legal organizations, including the ACLU, and I’m getting closer to finding someone to represent me for my upcoming criminal trial. I won’t be writing much more about my case until the criminal trial is over, so I’d like to state a few things now for the record.

First, my silence should not in any way be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Even if the Greenville curfew ordinance were Constitutional (it is not), Bicycle Bad Cop still did not have probable cause to arrest me. I assert this despite Judge Hawley’s rubber stamp to the contrary at my preliminary hearing.

Second, I have been told that the Younger doctrine prevents me from filing a 1983 Civil Suit against the City until after my criminal trial is over. This is not a bad thing, as it gives me time to evaluate whether to press ahead with such a lawsuit. My contacts at the ACLU tell me that they were already interested in the Greenville curfew ordinance and will likely be publishing a press release about it soon. As it turns out, any minor or parent – not just those who have been detained under the ordinance – can challenge the curfew and have it overturned on 1st Amendment grounds. If this happens, then I may not file suit against the City. Regardless, my silence about a potential 1983 Suit should not be interpreted as a lack of conviction. I just have to deal with what’s in front of me first, namely not going to prison.

Finally, while I may continue to post updates about the case on my blog from time to time, I am disinclined to communicate with the press to any great length (not that they’ve been banging down my door). There are two reasons for this: 1) Every time an article is published about my case, the public response – from locals, anyway – is overwhelmingly negative, including accusations that I must be a pedophile since I am interested in defending the rights of minors. One tires of hearing that kind of crap very quickly. 2) If my case does proceed beyond the Pretrial stage, then I could lose the argument for a change of venue if I am the primary source driving publicity.

Thanks to all who have offered to help me in various ways, and to the dozens who have sent letters of moral support. It has meant so much to me to know that I am not alone in thinking that what happened to me was a grave injustice.

Sincerely,

--Dan Edge

Railroaded

2009-10-21T17:40:00.003-05:00

My preliminary hearing took place this past Thursday (10/15), and the result was the worst case scenario I had envisioned going into it – I was railroaded, and my case was rubber stamped for criminal trial by a hostile judge.

While preparing for the hearing, several friends advised me to consult legal counsel, so I looked into it. I did not qualify for a Public Defender (I am too “rich”), but I couldn’t afford a private lawyer without significant financial hardship. The procedure for a preliminary hearing looked pretty straight-forward – it’s very limited what a defendant can do – so I thought I would just do my best to represent myself. In the worst case scenario I could then imagine – that the hearing would be presided over by a hostile judge already familiar with my case and against me from the beginning – it wouldn’t matter if I had legal counsel or not. I would just be out whatever money I had paid the lawyer to represent me.

Lady Luck was not in my corner that day. The presiding judge (Hawley) was clearly already familiar with my case. After I told him that I intended to represent myself, he said, “Let me tell you right now, Mr. Edge: I will not allow you to use this courtroom as a political platform, and if you attempt to do so, I will hold you in contempt of court.” This was Hawley’s introduction to me, and things only got worse from there.

Most of the questions I had prepared were deemed legally “irrelevant” by Hawley. Whether or not the minors were allowed to leave: irrelevant. Whether or not the minors’ arrests were a precondition to mine: irrelevant. Whether my arresting officer was familiar with the curfew ordinance and with “contributing to the delinquency of a minor”: irrelevant. On this last point, the judge himself objected. He said, “Mr. Edge, I assure you that we’ve had cases of ‘contributing to the delinquency of a minor’ in this City before, and I am familiar with the law.” This was stated with a sneering, annoyed tone, along with most of Hawley’s other comments.

Regarding Nelson’s knowledge of the curfew law, I asked him if, according to the ordinance, minors were to be given the opportunity to leave. He answered, “If they violate the curfew, then they are to be detained.” I asked again, “But does the curfew not state that minors are to be given the opportunity to leave before they are detained?” Nelson repeated the same answer. At this point, Hawley interjected again: “Look, Mr. Edge, a police officer doesn’t have a lot of authority over the law while he’s out on the street. All he can do is use his discretion to some extent about whether to enforce the law in a particular situation. He even told them to leave, when he could have just detained them.”

“Your Honor,” I said, “the curfew ordinance directly states that minors are to be given the opportunity to leave before being detained,” and I read to him the relevant lines from the ordinance.

He replied, “Well, he told them to leave, and they refused, and he used his discretion in detaining them.”

The whole thing seemed really bizarre. In some instances the judge would initiate (and, I assume, sustain) objections to my questions completely independent of the prosecution. In others, the prosecutor would say “objection,” and Hawley would cut him off to explain, and sustain, the objection.

Hawley frequently interrupted the proceedings to argue in favor of the prosecution or to badger me about my ignorance of legal procedure. When I asked Nelson if anyone had told him that I instructed them to break the law, Hawley cut in to say, “You don’t have to instruct anyone to break the law, you just have to entice them, and this [referring to the protest flier I had handed out prior to the event] looks like enticement to me.”

Nelson did acknowledge that no one ever told him I had instructed anyone to break the law. He acknowledged that he never questioned anyone about whether I knew how old any of the protesters were. He acknowledged that he never questioned anyone about anything related to my case at all -- before, during or after my arrest. What it came down to was the protest flier. The very fact that I distributed the flier, regardless of whether I specifically targeted any age group, was deemed sufficient evidence for the judge to bind my case over to trial. Nelson even acknowledged that the young men he detained did not have any protest fliers in their possession. That Major McLaughlin of the Greenville City PD had been sent this flier the day before my arrest, and that officers on duty that night (including Nelson) knew about the protest beforehand, apparently were not factors taken into consideration by Hawley when weighing his decision.

I had seen Hawley preside over traffic court a few weeks earlier, and the calm, reasonable man I met at that time bore no resemblance to the indignant, annoyed, belligerent judge who presided over my case. He had his mind made up before he walked into that courtroom. He was doing his worst, not only to argue in favor of the prosecution, but to embarrass me in the process.

While unable to cow me into submission, Hawley did accomplish a few things: he succeeded in looking like an asshole lording over an innocent man from high atop his throne. And he proved that corruption comes in many forms.

The more I think about this, the more angry I become. So I’m wrapping up this blog post for now. Unfortunately, no transcript was made at the hearing. I felt that I needed to chronicle my side of things while the experience was still fresh in my mind.

Thanks for reading,

--Dan Edge

Fumblin' With The Blues

2009-10-19T13:10:00.002-05:00

This past week was a rough one for me. On top of everything else that happened, on Friday a Laffy Taffy ripped a crown from my tooth (to be re-cemented today)! Playing the blues often has a cathartic effect on me, so I whipped out my guitar this morning and learned how to play Tom Waits's "Fumblin' With The Blues."

Please allow that this is my second ever music recording, and my first ever photo-montage. The photos tell a story, which you may understand if you're familiar with what's been going on in my life these past few months.

--Dan Edge

Interview With Channel 7 News in Greenville

2009-10-14T23:00:00.002-05:00

Originally aired on Channel 7 News @ 11pm on Thursday, October 15. In this interview, I state my intention to file a Section 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit against the City of Greenville.

Letter to Media Announcing Prelim

2009-10-14T09:00:00.002-05:00

To Whom It May Concern,

** I am Dan Edge, the man who was arrested on 9/5 while protesting Greenville’s emergency curfew ordinance. My preliminary hearing is scheduled for Thursday, October 15 @ 3:00pm at the Greenville Municipal Court (426 N. Main St). At that time I will announce whether or not I will wage a Section 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit against the City of Greenville. To journalists from the Greenville News: please note that I will not speak with anyone from your paper.

-----------------------------------------

In case you are unfamiliar with my story: on the Saturday, 9/5, I was wrongfully arrested in downtown Greenville along with two minors who were trying to comply with police orders to leave. I was ordered not to speak while detained, specifically to a journalist present. A detailed chronicle of what happened that evening can be found here.

Journalists from at least two media outlets were on the scene, and a reporter from the Greenville News saw exactly what happened. He claims that he submitted a full report, but that the story was taken over by his editorial staff and modified for “political reasons.” When Managing Editor Chris Weston was notified that his staff may have committed a serious breach of journalistic ethics, he did not look into the matter until I told him that I was publicizing his paper’s role in what happened. A detailed chronicle of my dealings with the Greenville News can be found here.

The City has decided to move forward with prosecuting me for two counts of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” The maximum sentence is six years in prison, three for each count. I will be representing myself and questioning the witness(es) at the hearing, which will take place tomorrow, 10/15 @ 3:00pm at the Greenville Municipal Court (426 N. Main St). At that time, I will also announce whether I will wage a Section 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit against the City of Greenville.

Some related, potentially news-worthy facts:

The City is already being investigated by the FBI and SLED for suspected Civil Rights violations. This case is unrelated to mine, but I have contacted both agencies to explore the possibility that the cops they are investigating are the same ones that violated my Civil Rights.

The Greenville City Council is planning to make the curfew permanent, and the new ordinance was given its first public reading on Monday, October 12. I have seen this document, and it still does not include a 1st Amendment exception as required by Federal law. And the ordinance still specifies that minors who violate the curfew are to be arrested (i.e. detained and moved to another location). This is in violation of State law and of our 4th Amendment rights, which protect us against unlawful search and seizure. I spoke to at least four City Council Members over the phone recently, told them that the curfew was unconstitutional as written, and offered to provide documentation for how to make the curfew lawful. They either didn’t listen or don’t care. Anyone arrested under the ordinance can sue the City for violation of 1st and 4th Amendment rights, and/or challenge the ordinance, which would certainly be struck down.

Dan Edge
i.am.dan.edge@gmail.com
864-331-9144

Preliminary Hearing -- Thursday, October 15

2009-10-06T08:19:00.002-06:00

My Preliminary Hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, October 15 @ 3pm at:

Municipal Court
426 N. Main St
Greenville, SC

Be there or be square. Should be a hoot.

--Dan Edge

What One Can Do

2009-10-06T08:16:00.003-06:00

Several people have asked what they can do to help me in my fight against the City. Here are some ideas:

1) If you know any Civil Rights attorneys who do pro bono or on contingency work, send them my way!

2) You can write to the City, The Greenville News, others in the local Greenville press, or anyone in the national press. I've made a list of local email, address, and phone contacts here.

3) Post information about my case elsewhere -- on your blog, in email to friends, etc.

4) Write me an email or comment on my blog if you sympathize with my plight. Dealing with this has been extraordinarily draining, and any moral support goes a long way. My brothers in spirit provide fuel to keep up the fight.

--Dan Edge

Who to Contact About my Case

2009-10-03T15:29:00.002-06:00

Several folks have asked me for names, addresses, emails, and phone numbers for contacts related to my case, like the City Council. Here are a lot of them:

--------------------

The Greenville News
305 S. Main St.
PO Box 1688
Greenville, SC 29602

Chris Weston, Managing Editor – cweston@greenvillenews.com
(864) 298-4100

--------------------

Greenville City Council
206 S Main St
Greenville, SC 29601-2832
(864) 467-4431

--------------------

City Council, State Rep, and Mayor -- Contact Emails Compiled:

patrickbhaddon@gmail.com,
RA@scsenate.org,
chandradillard@schouse.org,
KWhite@greenvillesc.gov,
LFlemming@greenvillesc.gov,
DSmock@greenvillesc.gov,
SReynolds@greenvillesc.gov,
ADoyle@greenvillesc.gov,
JLittlejohn@greenvillesc.gov,
DSudduth@greenvillesc.gov

--------------------

Council Members and Mayor Individually:

Knox White, Mayor
Term: 11/07-11/11
P.O. Box 2207
Greenville, SC 29602-2207
Work - (864) 467-4590
E-mail - KWhite@greenvillesc.gov

Lillian Brock Flemming
Mayor Pro Tem
District 2 Representative
Term: 11/05-11/09
398 Oscar Street
Greenville, SC 29601
Work - (864) 355-3976
Home - (864) 241-8677
E-mail - LFlemming@greenvillesc.gov

C. Diane Smock
At-Large Representative
Term: 11/05-11/09
PO Box 351
Greenville, SC 29602
Home: (864) 271-4381
E-mail- DSmock@greenvillesc.gov

Susan Reynolds
At-Large Representative
Term: 11/07-11/11
314 West Earle St.
Greenville, SC 29609
Home - (864) 232-9298
E-Mail - SReynolds@greenvillesc.gov

Amy Ryberg Doyle
District 1 Representative
Term: 11/07-11/11
PO Box 156
Greenville, SC 29602
Home - (864) 232-7179
E-Mail - ADoyle@greenvillesc.gov

Jil M. Littlejohn
District 3 Representative
Term: 2/09-11/11
26 Blair Street
Greenville, SC 29607
Home - (864) 283-0455
Mobile - (864) 881-1545
E-Mail - JLittlejohn@greenvillesc.gov

J. David Sudduth
Vice Mayor Pro Tem
District 4 Representative
Term: 11/05-11/09
26 McPherson Lane
Greenville, SC 29605
Work - (864) 282-4912
Home - (864) 233-4540
E-Mail - DSudduth@greenvillesc.gov

Why I Am Innocent, Whlie the City is Not

2009-10-02T09:06:00.005-06:00

I'm going to go ahead and bring out the big guns. No need to wait for my Preliminary Hearing. I'm told that the city still intends to prosecute. Here is why they will fail:

Curfews ordinances are required to have a 1st Amendment exception, specifically to allow minors to protest the curfew or anything else. The Greenville City ordinance is unlawful, and in the eyes of the Federal Courts, a violation of 1st Amendment rights. Any minor detained under the Greenville curfew ordinance could easily challenge and defeat the law. They also may file a 1983 suit against the city.
It is illegal to arrest anyone for violating a Civil ordinance (like a seat belt violation or curfew ordinance), except under very specific circumstances, and even then requires a warrant from a judge (SC Code of Laws, Sections 15-17-20 and 15-17-40). From the ordinance (Section 3): “The police are authorized to take custody of a minor failing to obey a directive to leave and to retain custody of the minor at a central location” (italics mine). Detention and subsequent movement of anyone in custody under authority of uniform is custodial arrest. Anyone arrested (i.e., detained and moved to City Hall) could sue the City for violating their 4th Amendment rights, which protects us from search and seizure, including the seizure of one's person.
Corporal Nelson violated my 1^st Amendment rights by ordering me not to speak while detained, specifically to the journalist present. Unless he could demonstrate that my speaking would "surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people" (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)), he had no right to act as a judge and initiate Prior Restraint on my freedom to speak. The only other reason I can think of he could silence me is if he thought I was gonna start a riot or yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater. Not relevant.

I've gathered much more data on these issues, but these three points alone, especially the first one, prove that the ones who broke the law here were not me and those minors. It was the City Council who drafted an illegal curfew ordinance, and police officers who broke the law in enforcing it. They compound the crime by violating 1st and 4th Amendment rights simultaneously, and in my particular case my 1st Amendment rights were violated in a much more serious way.

An appeal to the two minors who were arrested at the protest last month: I got two words for you and your folks -- class action. The City violated your 1st and 4th Amendment rights, and worse, if my memory is correct Corporal Nelson also instructed at least one of you not to speak. It is within your right to file a Section 1983 lawsuit against the City for violating your Civil Rights. From what I have seen, the minimum punitive damages for such a suit begin in the millions. I could be a powerful ally to you.

I may not file the lawsuit, depending on how the City responds. I want to see Corporal Nelson fired or at least severely punished (he has no business working with the public). I want to see the curfew ordinance repealed or modified to comply with State and Federal Law. I'd like at least an apology from the City and the Police Department for violating my Civil Rights in so grievous a way. Even if some of those things happen, if they are not publicized and my name vindicated, I may have to file the lawsuit anyway (as is my right) just to see my reputation restored.

--Dan Edge

Internal Affairs Interview Transcript

2009-10-01T18:49:00.006-06:00

Following is the transcript from my interview with the Internal Affairs Division of the Greenville City Police, regarding my formal complaint against Corporal Nelson (Bicycle Bad Cop), the officer who arrested me. Much of this information is also available in my chronicle of the event here. If you click on the images individually, they should expand to a full-size, readable page. Admittedly not the most convenient way to read a transcript, but I did what I could with a paper original.

Contact Availability

2009-10-01T15:47:00.003-06:00

I have just sent a statement to the press about my Greenville News article along with a copy of my Internal Affairs interview transcript. Many of the emails didn't go through initially because the transcript file is so large, so I resent it without the attachment. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I'm a bit concerned about the fact that The Greenville News and Bicycle Bad Cop know where I live. Consequently, I will not be home tonight and will not be able to take telephone calls on my home phone. I will, however be checking email and will respond with cell phone calls or reply mails as necessary.

My email address is: i.am.dan.edge@gmail.com

--Dan Edge

The Greenville News -- Corrupt from Core to Top

2009-10-01T14:35:00.003-06:00

On Saturday, September 5th, I was unlawfully arrested in downtown Greenville for “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.” I had organized a protest against the emergency curfew ordinance, which in my view punishes the vast majority of responsible youth for the lawlessness of a deviant minority. This protest was planned with the knowledge and advisement of the Greenville County Police Department. Picketing ordinances were obeyed, and the protest was extraordinarily docile, especially for this day and age.

But something went terribly wrong that night. As expected, the police showed up shortly after the protest began. Officers were doing their jobs, checking IDs, and asking any minors present to vacate downtown. The curfew ordinance states that any young-appearing individuals are subject to questioning by police, and that they may be detained at City Hall if they refuse to leave or return after being instructed to leave. Implicit in the ordinance is that any minors are to be given the opportunity to leave when ordered to do so. For the most part, that is how officers on the scene handled the situation, with the exception of one – a bicycle cop named Corporal Nelson.

Nelson burst onto the scene with a fury and began questioning three young men sitting on the statue platform adjacent to the Poinsette Hotel with protest signs. After being instructed to leave, they began to comply immediately, but one of them committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of Bicycle Bad Cop – he handed me back his protest sign, said “Thank You,” and turned to make good his escape. Nelson interpreted this as a refusal to leave and arrested him immediately. About 30 seconds later, one of the other young men came back to find out why his friend was not in tow. Nelson then arrested him, as well. These young men were not given the opportunity to leave. The arresting officer had not complied with the letter or spirit of the ordinance. Nelson’s actions were belligerent and unlawful; but the worst was yet to come.

When Nelson first walked up, I had been speaking to a Greenville News reporter named Richard Walton. Walton was one of the only journalists who responded to my announcement that the protest would take place, and he was interviewing me about the purpose of the event. After the two minors were detained, I expressed to Walton my exasperation at what had just occurred. What Corporal Nelson did next may cost him his job, and may cost the city millions. A partial transcript from my chronicle of the events:

-------------------------

Dan Edge: [To Mr. Walton] Can you believe this? That kid was just trying to leave! All he did was say “thanks” and give me the poster…

Bicycle Bad Cop (BBC): [Now addressing me] YOU! Shut your mouth! NOW! Stand right there! Don’t move! I’ll deal with YOU in a minute!

Dan Edge: By what right are you detaining me here? By what right do you order me not to speak? What am I being charged with?

BBC: We’ll figure that out in a minute. I’m going to go deal with these minors, who are now under detention, then I’ll talk to my superior and we’ll figure out what you’re being charged with. But right now, if you know what’s good for you, you’ll sit right there and keep your mouth shut. Earlier, you said you respected my uniform and my need to do my job. I’m just doing my job. Just sit down right there! NOW!

Dan Edge: Listen, this guy [referring to Mr. Walton] is a journalist. Are you saying I’m not allowed to speak to the press?

BBC: You are now in my custody. You can either sit right there and keep your mouth shut, or I will put you in hand cuffs and throw you in a squad car right now. Is that what you want?

Dan Edge: Hmmm… [Considering the inevitability of arrest] I’ll have to think about that…

BBC: There’s nothing to think about! I’ve taken you into my custody! Now I’m going to deal with those detainees, and I’ll be back to deal with YOU in a minute. Sit right there!

Mr. Walton: [Stands idly by, complying with the order to step back a few feet, a seeming look of shocked disbelief on his face.]

-------------------------

Walton was standing less than ten feet away during this exchange. He saw and heard everything. He may not have known chapter and verse of the egregious Civil Rights violations on the part of Corporal Nelson, but he must have known that something terrible had happened. I was arrested for two counts of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor,” and spent 17 hours in the Greenville County drunk tank before being released upon arraignment.

After I got out of jail the next day, I was shocked by the media coverage of the event. No one mentioned what really happened, including Walton. The articles only quoted the police chief’s report (she wasn’t there): that two minors refused to leave and were detained, and that the protest organizer had been arrested. Walton emailed me after I published my chronicle of what happened; he said he wanted to keep the story alive, tell my side of it. I told him I was very upset that his paper had not reported the criminal actions of Bicycle Bad Cop. You were there, Walton, you saw everything, so why didn’t you tell the whole story?

Walton replied that he had submitted a full report to his editorial staff, but that they then took complete control of the article and chose not to publish what really happened. Why would they do that, I asked? He paused. Then, in a moment of truth which he may come to regret, he said that there were political elements in play here. Many downtown patrons, including the businesses who advertise with The Greenville News and citizens who purchase it, strongly support the curfew ordinance. “That’s why journalistic ethics exists,” I told him. “When things like this happen, a man has to make a choice. And they made the wrong one.” So, too, did Walton, but not until later.

As a result of the media’s refusal to publish facts crucially relevant to my arrest, for days I was lambasted in discussion forums on the local news websites. I defended myself, posted a detailed chronicle of what happened, and made myself available to the media to tell my side of the story. But no one cared. A very few journalists have contact me since, but no one has yet published the terrible truth: that me and the two minors were unlawfully arrested, and that Corporal Nelson was guilty of serious Civil Rights violations.

In a few cases reporters have candidly communicated that their respective editorial staffs know what really happened, but refuse to publish the story for “political reasons.” This was certainly the case with Walton and The Greenville News.

A few weeks after my arrest, I contacted Chris Weston, Managing Editor of The Greenville News. I told him what happened, where he could find more information (my blog), and that his staff was likely guilty of serious breaches in journalistic ethics. He was defensive of his paper, but promised to look into it and get back to me. Over a week and a half later I had still heard nothing from him.

Yesterday, 9/30, I finally received a copy of the transcript from my interview with the Internal Affairs division of the Greenville City Police. During that interview, the officers asked me if I had had any contact with Richard Walton since my arrest. I said yes, and when they asked about the content of that discussion I told them about Walton’s claim that his story was doctored by the editorial staff. I had planned to distribute this transcript to the media, so I made it a priority to contact Weston and find out how he was going to respond to his staff’s breach of ethics. I wanted to give him a chance to make things right before I released information demonstrating the corruption of his newspaper.

To my disgust, Weston hadn’t bothered to look into it. He never read my side of the story, seemed not to have discussed the issue with Walton, and had taken no steps to correct the immoral actions of his staff. But the most shocking news was yet to come. After speaking with me over the phone, Weston asked Walton about my claims, then called me back a short time later. Walton had denied that our conversation about the editorial manipulation of his article ever took place. I couldn’t believe it.

As mentioned earlier, after my arrest a few journalists have kept in touch with me, looking for a way to bring the truth to light. I had hope that at least one of them would serve as my champion, or a champion for the cause of truth, which in this case is the same thing. Walton was one of those journalists. More than anyone else, he knew that my version of the story was fact. He seemed sincerely interested in exposing what really happened, sincerely interested in vindicating me.

A few days after Walton first told me about his editorial staff’s creative political editing, I called him up to issue a benevolent warning. I will work with you, I said, but you may not want to work with me. I cannot promise to keep silent about the things you say to me, I said, especially considering my efforts to restore my reputation in Greenville, where I hope to live and work for many years to come. I did not consider our phone conversations privileged information. He is not my doctor, lawyer, counselor, or spouse. I assume that anything I told him was on the record and may be published. But this goes both ways. I said that I liked him, and for that reason I didn’t want to put him in a situation in which his job might be in jeopardy. He replied that he was unconcerned about this – that he intended to do his job and report the facts as he could ascertain them. Little did I know that his lack of concern was based on a willingness to lie to his boss.

When Weston told me about Walton’s dishonesty, I almost shed tears of fury and disappointment. I had trusted Walton. As far as I knew him, I believed in his dedication to journalistic integrity. He seemed sincerely interested in keeping the story alive. It’s entirely possible, in fact probable that his intentions were honorable. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Walton earned himself a one-way ticket. He hopped onto the caboose of the Hell Train just as it was leaving the station, with Weston at the helm. Given what has happened, it’s also possible that Walton’s original claim about creative political editing was a lie, that he never told his paper what really happened, and that he continued to correspond with me in order to find other ways to assault my character. But I think the former possibility is much more likely.

Weston didn’t say so, but I think he could tell that my story was the truth, including what I had said about Walton. When I started to get upset, and told him that I planned to write and distribute this article, he began to take the situation much more seriously. Would I be interested in going on the record with his paper?

Are you serious, Weston? Why the hell would I do that? Every one of your staff I’ve come into contact with has been dishonest and corrupt. Why would I give you another opportunity to throw me to the wolves? My side of the story is posted publicly, I said. If he wants to retract his original story and tell the truth, then he can do it without my help. The Greenville News will receive a copy of this article, but they will not receive a copy of the Internal Affairs interview transcript. Nor will I communicate with them again for any reason, not if I can help it.

Besides, Weston’s manner was not that of a man dedicated to justice and journalistic integrity. He was in damage control mode. He didn’t care that his staff had lied to the public, or that they did it for political reasons, or that an innocent man was being persecuted; he cared only that I might expose the damning truth about his paper. Initially, I had considered waiting a few day to publish this article, to give Weston the opportunity to make things right. But after consideration, I rejected that plan. Weston and his staff have shown that reporting facts are not their highest priority, especially if those facts lead to unpopular conclusions. And most especially when those conclusions are unpopular with those who buy or advertise in The Greenville News.

Had The Greenville News reported the story honestly from the beginning, I may have had only to endure 17 hours in a drunk tank and an interview with Internal Affairs. Had details about what really happened been publicized, the Greenville City Council and Solicitor’s Office may have taken notice. The Solicitor has the power to refuse to prosecute my case (though Bicycle Bad Cop could arrange for his own prosecutor, not likely). The Solicitor may have looked into my case, seen the egregious violations of Civil Rights, been made aware of the potential for a 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit, and refused to prosecute. The City Council may have discovered that the letter of their curfew ordinance is illegal in numerous ways, and either terminated the ordinance or restructured it to conform to legal requirements. But none of this happened.

As a result of what did happen, I have been forced to spend hours and hours of my time defending my reputation. I’ve had to delve into the law in preparation for my preliminary hearing (Lord only knows when that will finally take place). I’ve had to begin researching the process of waging a 1983 lawsuit against the city. I’ve lost sleep and devoted so much time and emotional energy to this – when I should have been studying for the GRE, which I took this afternoon. I’ve had to do these things, because I want to live and work in this town. I’m pursuing a Masters Degree in Marriage and Family Therapy, and this case had made me look like a danger to children. Not to mention that the maximum sentence for my charge is six years in prison.

Nor was The Greenville News alone in ignoring the story. A few journalists have expressed some interest in my case, but no one has interviewed me, and no one has published my side of the story. Just as I organized and executed this protest by myself, for the most part I’ve been alone in defending myself. I certainly have no defenders in the local media.

Last night, I happened to meet a gentleman who worked at a local news publication. He asserted that, when reporting on criminal cases, journalists generally restrict themselves to the data contained in official police reports. This is the case even if the journalists know for a fact that the police report contains false or misleading information. They do this, he said, to avoid libel lawsuits from the city. When he told me this, it didn’t make sense to me at all, and upon further reflection, I find his comments to be potentially frightening.

For one thing, there are certainly many, many cases in which media reports extend beyond the official statement from police. Other can be interviewed, and journalists often report on events they are personally witness to. You see it on TV all the time. The media interview many people charged with crimes and allow them to tell their side of the story, often before a preliminary hearing.

But what really frightens me is this: What kind of country do we live in where media outlets are afraid to publish facts for fear of legal action by Big Brother? Does the 1st Amendment not protect the right to a free press? If this policy is widespread, then how many illegal actions by police go unreported, even though the media knows what happened, because they fear a lawsuit? There are many different forms of physical force, including the threat to confiscate property. If city, state, and federal governments are cowing the media using threats of legal action, then we are all in deep trouble.

Depending on the response of the City to my case (I plan to send my Internal Affairs transcript to every Council Member, City and County, the Mayor, and the Governor), then I may well soon write an article titled 1983. 1983 is the year prior to 1984, the year in which the fictional events of George Orwell’s famous novel take place. I fear our country is headed in that direction. 1983 is also the section of the law under which one can sue the government for Civil Rights violations. I do not want to go through that, but if that’s what I have to do to restore my reputation, I will.

To employees of The Greenville News: I hope you are ashamed of what your paper has done here. Your editorial staff allowed a man they knew was innocent to burn at the stake in the court of public opinion. When your managing editor found out about it, he did nothing until prodded with promises that the ugly truth would be revealed. Only then did he act, not out of a sense of justice, but in a knee-jerk reaction to defend his unethical organization’s reputation. Then the only seemingly honest journalist of the bunch lied to his boss to cover his ass. The conduct of your paper has been shameful in every respect, and it deserves rousing condemnation from all quarters. Please keep in mind that I will not speak to anyone at The Greenville News about my case, and that if you do speak to me, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

Disgustedly Yours,

--Dan Edge

*Update: I was just informed that The Greenville News plans to publish another article about my case. Mr. Alongi, a reporter for The Greenville News, read to me the story he intended to publish and asked if I had any comment. I told him no, but that the story as written contained numerous factual errors. I'm pleased at least that the article refers readers to my version of events (i.e., the truth). Needless to say, this story would not exist had Weston not been prodded by concerns about his paper's reputation.

GRE -- Partial Success

2009-10-01T13:08:00.002-06:00

I just finished taking the GRE. Official score: 1240, and I'm confident I killed both writing sections. Not as high as I would have preferred, but high enough, and about what I expected. Could I have reached the mid 1300's with more sleep and less stress? Who knows?

Next stop, Marriage and Family Therapy Program at Converse!

--Dan Edge

Peron the Pedophile Sympathizer...

2009-09-25T18:24:00.007-06:00

…And the “Objectivists” Who Promote Him

Several years ago, when I was still participating in Lindsay Perigo’s SOLO website, a firestorm erupted over a New Zealand Libertarian named Jim Peron. A group called the Locke Foundation had published a report indicating that Peron was a NAMBLA sympathizer and a proponent of “boylovers.” Peron is a notable writer in Libertarian circles, and many allies came to his defense when the charges surfaced. I don’t recall who all was on which side, but Lindsay Perigo led the charge against Peron, while Barbara Braden (author of The Passion of Ayn Rand) sided with Peron.

Perigo’s vitriolic criticism of Branden led to her departure from SOLO. Soon thereafter, Perigo split with his partner in the SOLO website Joe Rowlands and created a new site called SOLO Passion, which is still in operation under his management. Barbara Barden’s ally Michael Stuart Kelly (MSK) started his own website, Objectivist Living (OL), on which Branden is a regular participant. The two sites then engaged in a propaganda war against each another – one which continues to this day.

I didn’t conduct extensive research on Peron or read the Locke Foundation report when all this went down. I didn’t have a dog in the fight, and I wanted to avoid the fireworks. But I did review some of the evidence against Peron, most significantly excerpts from an article he wrote and published himself in which he defends “boylovers” who molested him as a minor. He probably deserves the criticism, I thought, and he definitely warrants close scrutiny. But I didn’t care enough about it to investigate further.

The Peron issue continues to resurface, mostly as a battlefield issue between SOLO and OL, with both sides lobbing hate-filled rhetoric and moral accusations with gusto. I am not now a regular participant in either website, but I recently commented on a thread devoted to Peron on OL. In four pages of comments, every participant had expressed virtually unequivocal support of Peron. I responded that the article Peron had written was very incriminating, and that I was surprised its content had not been considered in the discussion.

These comments incited derisive and dismissive replies from several OL participants, especially from MSK himself. MSK claimed that I didn’t know all the facts, that Peron had been framed, and that I was a “liar” who was “smear[ing]” Peron without justification. I challenged him to publish the evidence against Peron, and he posted links to the Locke Foundation report and the publication Unbound, in which Peron’s “boy love” article can be found.

I read the Locke Foundation report for the first time today, as well as the entirety of Peron’s article Abuse: One Boy’s Story. Taken together, these documents are comprehensive, crushing, and conclusive: Jim Peron is most certainly a NAMBLA sympathizer and a proponent of “man/boy love” (or at least, he was 20 years ago and never owned up to it.) Just a few details from the report:

• Peron sold NAMBLA literature in his San Francisco Libertarian bookstore.
• NAMBLA held regular meetings at this bookstore.
• One of his associates at the book store was arrested for sex with minors, as were several others who contributed articles to Unbound.
• The report contains verbal and written accounts from various sources affirming Peron’s position on “boy love.”
• Peron published at least one issue of Unbound himself, and contributed an article to it. This issue contained nude pictures of children and multiple erotic stories about children, some seemingly autobiographical. Peron’s story was definitely autobiographical. In it he describes how he was subtly molested (or otherwise treated in a sexually inappropriate manner) by several different men at a military academy beginning when he was 12. It made him feel good, he says, and these “boylovers” contributed greatly to his emotional health.

A few passages from Peron’s article warrant particular attention (Warning!!! Many will find these passages to be disturbing and offensive!):

---------------------------
“I remember Mr. C., he was the science teacher. On so many weekends he would take me with him to get a hamburger at McDonald's or to see a movie. There was his friend, Mr. D., who came to work as a substitute houseparent. He used to let me sit in his lap. There was Mr. R. who used to slip his hand down the back of my pajama's. He said it was to make sure I wasn't wearing my underwear to bed but I knew it was because he liked feeling my butt. That was o.k. because I liked it too.”
---------------------------

Note: This one is longer, but worth quoting at length, as it contains a more explicit defense of “boylovers.”

---------------------------
“I also know something about man/boy love and I know it from a boy’s perspective. I vividly remember the men I met after my fathers death. My mother could no longer care for us so she sent us to a military school. It was there I met half a dozen boylovers.

It seems quite natural that these men would come to a boy’s school. I remember them vividly. I remember them because they were the only staff members who gave us genuine affection. They treated us with dignity, they treated us as if we were human.

For five years, between the ages of twelve and sixteen, I spent much of my time with men who were boylovers. At no time did they force themselves on any of the boys. What they did do was genuinely love us and for that I am greatful.

So I can say from first hand experience what it is like to be abused. And I utterly reject the hysteria about the “abuse” of man/boy love. I reject it because I know the truth about abuse. I know what these so-called “child care professionals” have only studied. I have been beaten within the confines of the family and I have been affectionately cradled in the arms of a “pervert.” I have felt the stinging pain of a fist across my face and the tender caress of a man’s hand across my butt. As a boy I personally experienced both kinds of “abuse” and I can only thank God that I met these boylovers.

…

Throughout the gay community, pompous, politically correct fools, some elected, spout off about “abusing” children. They dissociate themselves from boylovers. They repudiate them. They say “there is no place in the human rights movement for these people.” Gay politicians throw boylovers to the lions every chance they get. All, they say, to prevent children from being abused.

Enough is enough…”
---------------------------

With this article, Peron nails in his own coffin. Even without all the other evidence against him, this article alone strongly implicates him as a proponent of pedophilia. It should be noted that these passages are preceded by an extensive chronicle of violent abuse Peron suffered at the hands of his father. These are clearly the words of a suffering soul who found solace in the only form of affection he had ever known. While this emotional response is understandable, and Peron’s harsh history pitiable, his subsequent support of pedophilia as an adult (and later public denials of this) are not pitiable. His actions are reprehensible, dishonest, and, in his capacity as a public figure, dangerous.

I cannot imagine how anyone who read Unbound and the Locke Foundation report could question Peron’s pedophilia sympathies. Yet MSK says he has read it all, and he publicly proclaims that Peron was “set up,” that the outrage after the Locke report surfaced was part of “an orchestrated smear job,” and, most fantastically, that he “stakes his name on” this position.

MSK is “staking” something, alright – himself, right through the heart. With their wildly irrational defense of Peron, MSK and friends have completely annihilated any credibility they might have (a credibility many argue was non-existent in the first place). Only a fool could look at the overwhelming evidence against Peron and conclude that he was “set up.” Set up by whom? The Locke Foundation + the San Francisco Police Department + the FBI + the New Zealand Government + some of Peron’s NAMBLA associates + Lindsay Perigo and his harem of “hate-mongers” + at least 10-15 other people noted in the Locke report? It must have been the same group who framed OJ! This conspiracy theory nonsense is so ridiculous, it warrants no further discussion.

One purpose of this blog post is to (re)expose Peron, who I believe is currently living in the U.S. But there is another purpose, one more important to me personally. I wanted to explain why I will never, ever again have anything to with Michael Stuart Kelly. This includes participating in his website, private correspondence, even casual polite conversation at a random academic conference. MSK, you are truly a disgusting human being. You have used your website to defend a proponent of pedophilia; you have distorted the facts about Peron to the members of your website (most of whom are too lazy or too uninterested to look into the facts for themselves); and you have rudely assaulted any who challenge you on this issue. You are a dishonest, delusional, irrational piece of shit.

I have never cared for the culture of condemnations, dissociations, and extreme sanction conscientiousness within the Objectivist community. I have rarely, if ever, dissociated myself from a group or website, and certainly not with grandstanding fanfare and barrages of vitriol in the wake of my warpath. But MSK and OL have well-earned my ire. I’ve participated in OL sparingly over the past few years, mostly as a dissenter on a variety of issues. But I regret that now. I simply cannot be party to such a concerted defense of a clearly exposed pedophilia proponent.

It doesn’t matter whether Peron himself ever committed any crimes, or if he’s changed his mind on these issues, or whatever. I am not here passing judgment on Peron, though he has been thoroughly dishonest in his own defense since the Locke report surfaced. I don’t know Peron, and I don’t particularly care about him, though I’d be concerned if he lived next door to my family.

The point is that OL, MSK, and his close allies have shown that they are poison to the Objectivist movement. A very weak poison, to be sure, but poison nonetheless. Just as we must dissociate ourselves (in varying degrees) from anarchists, Republicans, and pedophilia supporters, so too we must distinguish ourselves from other “Objectivists” who support and promote these people. What if a young person interested in Objectivism stumbles first upon MSK’s notorious website? Good god, what if the press picked up on this crap? Objectivist Living makes us look bad.

I’ve sent a request to MSK to remove my membership from his website. He’ll likely denounce me as a “co-conspiring hate-monger,” part of the “orchestrated” effort to “smear” Peron. You are so delusional MSK, I have no words for it. For the record: This blog post represents my own judgments based on research I personally conducted and evaluated. I have no connection whatsoever with Perigo and SOLO. Though I admit I feel a little kinship with Perigo as a result of this. In this case, he delivered MSK and OL their just desserts.

--Dan Edge

Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love" -- Quotes

2009-09-23T13:57:00.003-06:00

I'm still reading this classic Robert Heinlein book, and I when I finally finish it, I may conclude it is his best (pushing "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" from its long held #1 spot in my heart). One section towards the middle of the book is titled "Intermission: Excerpts from the Notebook of Lazarus Long" (pp 240-251 in my edition). Here's are some tidbits of joy from this gem of a chapter:

"Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proven innocent."
"A generation which ignores history has no past -- and no future."
"What a wonderful world it is that has girls in it!" (A personal favorite! --D.E.)
"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis."
"If you don't like yourself, you can't like other people."
"No state has an inherent right to survive through conscript troops and, in the long run, no state ever has."
"It is better to copulate than never."
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks.
"Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse."
"An elephant: a mouse built to government specifications."
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as 'bad luck.'"
"In a mature society, 'civil servant' is semantically equal to 'civil master.'"
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something."
"Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"
"Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil."
"If the universe has any purpose more important than topping a woman you love and making a baby with her hearty help, I've never heard of it."
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed."
"You live and learn. Or you don't live long."

There are many more great ones in this chapter; this was just a sample. Go read this book right now!

--Dan Edge

Praise Galt for Football VII: The Crappiest Ever Edition

2009-09-17T13:52:00.003-06:00

For my 7th annual football season preview, I had hoped to give my avid readers (all three of you) something special: a more in-depth review of NCAA and NFL football ball than I've ever before attempted. But alas! Between dealing with my pending court case and helping my folks move 117,532 separate items into their new abode, I haven't been able to study up properly on the upcoming season. At the very least, I'll give a preview of my three favorite teams: The Carolina Panthers (NFL), the Carolina Gamecocks, and the Clemson Tigers (both NCAA).

Carolina Panthers:

All I can say is eewwwww! We're gonna stink this year. Delhomme picked up right where he left off -- with 4 interceptions in the first game. Made me sick then (during last year's playoffs), makes me sick now. Add a fumble by Delhomme, an interception by another QB, and another fumble from a wet RB, and that makes !7! turnovers. It doesn't matter how good your defense is, if you turn the ball over 7 times you're going to get beat. It's as simple as that. The offensive line hasn't gelled, we don't have a QB, and the formerly formidable 'D' is getting either too old or too expensive (or both). Steve Smith can do nothing if no one can get the ball to him. We do have two great running backs, but they can't win on their own, especially not with an O-Line that is sucking wind.

I considered accepting Jesus into my heart just so I could pray for victory (or a quick death). If I thought it would help I might do it, but nothing can help the Panthers now. 4th place in the NL East would not surprise me. Hopefully, we can trade for a new QB at some point early in the season.

Carolina Gamecocks:

My Gamecocks I'm much happier about. The offense didn't look too great in their opener against NC State, but Coach Spurrier brought in a very conservative game plan. Against Georgia, he was playing to win -- and they almost did. What a show by both Georgia and South Carolina last weekend! Loved it.

QB Garcia has grown up fast, and I'm excited that we're going to have him three more years (including this one), assuming he doesn't go to the NFL. He throws hard, makes good reads, and isn't afraid to run the ball if he thinks he can get a 1st down out of it. Very spunky kid. Several WR's and a massive TE will make this a special season for Garcia.

But the real story from SC is the crushing defense. They've only gotten better. NC State and Georgia weren't giving away the ball like we normally do, we were taking it from them: interceptions, strips, and fumble recoveries. LB Eric Norwood is a one-man wrecking crew. On any play, run or pass, he has the potential to turn the game around. I'm so glad he decided to stay instead of leave early for the NFL.

Prediction: Carolina will defeat at least two top-15 teams this year and will be ranked in the top 15 themselves at some point. If you doubt me, just ask Eric Norwood...to his face.

Clemson Tigers:

The Tigers are in a similar position as my Gamecocks. They have some special players on both sides of the ball, and are unranked but riled to kick some unlucky team off its pedestal. Clemson, too, may take out a top 15 team this year.

Unlike the Panthers, Clemson has a serviceable QB, a tough offensive line, an a strong complement of WR's (especially Ford) to go along with their killer RB's. C.J. Spiller is set to break some records this year, and I'm going to enjoy watching it.

How far will Clemson go? For me, it all depends on Coach Dabo Sweeny. If he's got the skills to pay the bills, then the Tigers might see a decent bowl game this year.

-------------------

And that concludes the Crappiest Ever Edition of Praise Galt for Football. I'm make sure not to get arrested for legally protesting next year, and do it justice. :)

--Dan Edge

Review of "Objectivism and Sexuality" by Jason Stotts

2009-09-14T16:37:00.004-06:00

I just finished listening to Erosopiha’s Jason Stotts’s lecture on “Objectivism and Sexuality,” which he delivered at the Ohio Objectivist Society on June 14, 2009. (A portion of this essay has been published on his blog). I am a bit of a hobbyist in this field myself (soon to have my License in Marriage and Family Therapy!), and presented my own preliminary theories in a six-part essay a few years ago. So I was very interested to hear Jason’s perspective. While I don’t agree with all of Jason’s views as presented in this lecture, I very much enjoyed listening to it. The psychology of sexuality from an Objectivist perspective is a wide-open field right now, with crickets chirping in it, and I’m very pleased to see another intellectual working to fill the gaps.

First, here’s a summary of his lecture from my notes, with comments:

In Part 1, Jason connects sexual attraction to objective values. This is the strongest part of his lecture, filled with concrete examples, and Jason seems very familiar with the material. He places a special stress on sexiness as healthiness, and I’m diggin’ it. I always feel squishy when Objectivists acknowledge the importance of mind and body on issues like this. Good work, Jason.

Part 2 is titled “Philosophy and Sexual Attraction.” Jason starts off strong here, but gets weaker towards the end. He does make a critical point – that instantaneous attraction or “love at first sight” is an automatized response to visible sense of life characteristics -- but if one is not exceedingly familiar with the “sense of life” concept, then he gets lost here. Jason doesn’t define “sense of life” and provides very few examples in this section of the presentation. For instance, give me an example of a sense of life characteristic I would see in a woman, causing attraction? Where does this come from, and what precisely am I seeing? His theories here are essentially correct, but are not concretized fully enough, and without examples it’s unclear whether he has integrated them appropriately.

Part 3 is where Jason gets where he really wants to go: the issue of homosexuality. First he presents Rand’s views, using Galt and Dagny as archetypes of sexuality from Rand’s perspective, along with quotes from her. He does a good job here. He goes on to discuss Rand’s views on homosexuality, and then transitions directly into his own views. From the way Jason handles this, it seems that the entire lecture is designed to deal with the homosexuality issue. His key objection to Rand’s view, from which all other criticisms arise, is that she believed homosexuality was immoral.

In Part 3, Jason discusses why he disagrees with this, and presents a new theory which will avoid the question of gay morality. Jason proposes a revised definition of masculinity – “one’s embodied maleness, combined with a desire for penetration.” For women, it’s the same with “femaleness” substituted for “maleness” and “reception” substituted for “penetration.” This definition can apply to hetero and homo alike.

Part 3 is where Jason’s approach and mine begin to diverge significantly. Jason’s contention that homosexuality is perfectly moral comes across as a flat assertion without sufficient foundation. The argument proceeds like this: 1) Homosexuality is moral. 2) Rand’s view implies that it is immoral, therefore her view is inadequate. 3) Here is a new view of the foundation of sexuality which will not imply that homosexuality is immoral.

I agree wholeheartedly with premise #1, but I do not believe that Jason fully establishes its truth. As for the rest of the premises: I doubt that he intended his argument to flow as I summarized it above, but based on the content and execution, this is what it amounts to.

While I appreciate his (appropriately) passionate defense of gays, I don’t see that the existence of homosexuality can serve as a foundation for a preliminary, fundamental inquiry on the topic of sexuality. One must account for it at some point, to be sure, but one can’t automatically presume that it is ethical, and one ought not define sexuality in such a way as to ensure that homosexuality is subsumed under the definition.

At one point in the speech, Jason asks: when two men have sex, do both feel masculine or only one? But this doesn’t cover all possibilities. How about neither? If there were no such thing as males and females, if the human race were a-sexual, then there would be no such thing as masculinity or femininity. I’m not asserting that gays don’t experience a gender-specific form of sexuality – I honestly don’t know at this point – but the possibility must be taken into account in any exhaustive inquiry, especially if one makes homosexuality a central part of his thesis.

Regarding the ethics of homosexuality: Arguing that gays don’t experience a gender-specific form of sexuality is not tantamount to claiming that homosexuality is immoral. Jason may accept this false dichotomy, considering how hard he works to take sides here.

All in all, this was a great effort on Jason’s part. Some of the sections were very strong, and the essay as delivered was well-written. He has a good understanding of the connection between values and emotions, and he does not discount the importance of the physiological when it comes to sexuality and attraction. I have some issues with his argument, as indicated above, but within the framework it flows reasonably well.

While he does a decent job with delivery, varying his tone and keeping the listener interested, for next time he may want to consider the differences between presenting an argument in print vs. in lecture format. His argument was constructed for the page, not for the lecture hall. Next time around, I would suggest restructuring the argument slightly and committing it to delimited points on note cards. This forces you to really know your presentation inside out, and allows you to make eye contact with the audience instead of keeping eyes locked on the page. There’s plenty of time for him to master these skills, though, and it was an honorable initial effort.

Jason’s now working on Chapter 2 of his eventual book on the subject, and he indicated in email that I may get a sneak preview! [Wringing hands]. I look forward to it.

--Dan Edge

Better a Day Early Than a Day Late

2009-09-10T22:13:00.005-06:00

Since it's after midnight, today is officially September 11, 2009. Among other things, I've come to think of this day as "National Military, Cop, and Firefighter Appreciation Day." These civil servants get so little appreciation for what they do, and often get little support from the government to execute their dutues. So 4 years ago, I decided to give Thank You cards to local military, police, and firefighter stations. They were so appreciative, I decided to continue the tradition in New York when I lived there. Now that I'm back in South Carolina, I see no reason to break tradition.

Since I was going to be up at the police station today anyway for issues regarding my recent arrest, I picked up some Thank You cards on the way and dropped one off at the downtown Law Enforcement Center. I even took one to the Detention Center next door, where I had been a guest over the weekend, to show there was no hard feelings. Then on my way home, I dropped by the local Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Recruiting stations to drop off more cards. I encourage anyone who appreciates what these folks do -- and what they stand for -- to adopt this tradition for himself. I paid $3.53 for Thank You cards today. How much do you think it means for them to know how much they're appreciated? Well worth the money and effort! Here's what I wrote:

To the Cops

Better a day early than a day late. Some of us will never forget what happened 8 years ago. To life, liberty, and happiness -- may you serve and protect them always.

To the Military

Better a day early than a day late. Some of us will never forget what happened 8 years ago. To life, liberty, and happiness -- may you always kick [expletive], and look pretty doing so, in their defense.

*Update: To the Local Fire Dept., delivered today (9/11)

Some of us will never forget what happened 8 years ago. To life, liberty, and happiness -- may you always serve to stoke the flames of these values.

--------------------------

I wrote about my 9/11 experience two years ago, and reprised it on my blog last year. Another new tradition in honor of this fateful day? Why not:

Where Were You? -- Reflections on 9/11

For me, September 11, 2001 began as a normal Tuesday morning in Greenville, SC. I got up, had breakfast, got dressed, and drove to StereoVideo, where I worked as a retail salesman. I arrived at work at about 8:30am. As usual, most of the staff met in the back of the store for a bull-and-smoking session before opening up. At about 8:50am, the owner (who was always late getting in) called to tell us that a plane had crashed into a building in New York City. We wanted to see what was going on, so we turned on the store.

StereoVideo is a high-end electronics store specializing in large, high-definition televisions and powerful audio systems. When we turned on the store, hundreds of thousands of dollars in audio-visual equipment brought the height of consumer technology to bear – to show us a scene of terror. The World Trade Center was on fire. The Sony high-def rear-projector shot rays of light on the wall, displaying a plume of smoke 10 feet tall. The $10k Infinity floor standing speakers boomed their built-in subwoofers as the second plane exploded on impact. It was a terrible spectacle of light and sound.

All day we watched – surrounded by 100 televisions, all showing the same nightmare. As the events of September 11 unfolded, StereoVideo continued to operate. I fought back tears as the wave of attacks continued. People kept coming into the store and would stay for hours, transfixed by images of destruction. To my utter shock, a few customers still wanted to chat about setting up their new home theatre system. So we loaded Shrek into a few of the DVD Players, and Princess Fiona pouted – next to images of tragic murder victims hurling themselves from the top of the World Trade Center. It was surreal.

After we closed the store, I went to a sports bar near the Blood Bank in downtown Greenville. All of the televisions were tuned to news channels, and the bar was alive with sad, angry, and patriotic discussion. I spoke with three or four strangers who shared my grief and rage. We all agreed that whoever was responsible for these attacks deserved prompt and utter destruction. We were at war.

As I approached the Blood Bank, I saw that I had to park half a mile away in order to get close to it. Many others had the same idea as me, and the place was mobbed with patriots offering their blood. A police officer that had just given blood advised me to come back the following day. The staff at the Blood Bank was overwhelmed. When I went the next day, they said to come back in a month, as they were already filled to capacity with blood donations.

In the days and weeks following the September 11 attacks, the country seemed to come together in a way I’d never seen before in my adult life. I finally understood why the adults around me were rejoicing so much when the Berlin Wall fell. Americans demanded justice, and a significant portion of the public had the moral courage to support an all-out war against Islamic Totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, that window of opportunity has passed. Most Americans seem to have forgotten what happened that Tuesday in 2001. It has become just one attack of many – perpetrated by some terrorist group or other – all tied-in to some nebulous “War on Terror” that is going nowhere fast. That is why, every year on the anniversary of September 11, I take the time to remember where I was that day. I remember where I was, how I felt, what I thought, and most importantly, what we need to do to make sure it never happens again.

Where were you?

--Dan Edge

Freedom Fighter

2009-09-08T05:41:00.010-06:00

Then:
[Photo deleted pending copyright inquiry with The Greenville News. The photo initially posted here was an image of me holding up a sign reading "I Support This War." The photo was on the front page of The Greenville News in 1998, the day after Madeline Albright spoke at the University of South Carolina in support of action against Iraq (they had just kicked out the weapons inspectors). 50 or so protesters were there opposing action in Iraq, and were heckling the mass of military personnel and politicians there. I initiated a one-man counter-protest, sitting on the steps above the protesters, and pointing my sign in their direction. While they used my image on the front page, the article in The Greenville News made no mention of the 50+ protesters at whom my sign was directed.]
[Supporting Action Against Iraq (Support Now Retracted) -- Columbia, SC, 1998]

Now:

[Tea Party -- New York, New York, February, 2009]

And Forever:

[Mug Shot, Arrested at "Emergency" Curfew Protest -- Greenville, SC, September, 2009]

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine

"Those who fail to uphold the rights of minority groups of which they are not a member, will inevitable find themselves in the shoes of the oppressed minority some day." -- Dan Edge

Adventures in Activism: A True Story of Protest, Arrest, and Release

2009-09-07T12:02:00.011-06:00

[Mug shot photo courtesy of the Greenville Police Department, by way of Channel 7 News]

The following is a chronicle of the events preceding, during, and after the downtown protest I organized against the “emergency” curfew ordinance – events which led to my arrest for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor."

On Friday, 9/4, I read an article in The Greenville News announcing an “emergency” curfew ordinance enacted by Greenville City Council. Disgusted with the oft used justification to restrict the liberty of the responsible majority in response to the lawlessness of a deviant minority, frustrated with the lack of attention given to proper support of local law enforcement, and reminiscent about happy memories of enriching cultural experiences in Greenville’s nightlife as a minor, I resolved to write an editorial about the ordinance articulating my disapproval.

In the process of writing the editorial, I realized that the “emergency” curfew ordinance presented a unique opportunity to uphold 1st Amendment Rights while demonstrating to all the folly of the Nanny State mentality. I began to consider organizing a protest, something I’d never done before.

My first call was to City Hall. A gentleman in the Special Events Department referred me to Major Gary McLaughlin at the Greenville Police Department. I left a message on Mr. McLaughlin’s voice mail describing my intentions, then continued working on the editorial and hand bill I planned to distribute at the event. I realized that I needed to act fast in choosing a venue for the protest, but I did not want to proceed without first consulting with Law Enforcement. I called Greenville PD’s general dispatch number, and was put in contact with a member of the Communications Division there. This gentleman offered preliminary advice for how to execute the protest peacefully, but he told me that I would want to speak to someone else about it, and that I could expect a return call.

Major Gary McLaughlin, also referred to (by me) as “Gentleman Good Cop,” returned my call a short time later. Mr. McLaughlin was courteous, knowledgeable, and professional – a true credit to his rank and uniform. He assured me that his department intended to protect any expression of 1st Amendment Rights. He advised me on appropriate options for venues, emailed me a copy of the City’s ordinances on picketing, and offered sound advice for ways to make the protest safe, legal, and effective. I emailed to him copies of the editorial I had written, the hand bill I intended to pass out at the protest, and the letter I had written to inform media and political outlets about the event. I sincerely thanked Major McLaughlin for all his help, on the phone and in email. Making his acquaintance was one of the highlights of my experience. Notably, he made no mention of any potential for me to be arrested for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor."

I spent the rest of my day Friday making copies of the editorial and hand bill, purchasing poster board and markers, and emailing media and political outlets about the event. I woke up the following morning excited about the prospects of the day. I looked forward to promoting: individual rights, a more significant police presence in downtown, and the numerous cultural benefits of the downtown Greenville nightlife.

In the early afternoon, I received an email reply to my media announcement from Mr. Richard Walton, a journalist for The Greenville News who later contributed to an article covering the event. In the email, Mr. Walton requested that I call him to discus my plans for that evening, which I did. During the course of this conversation, I found that he was polite, respectful, and seemingly sincerely interested in my point of view. In response to his questions, I related to him some of the arguments presented in my editorial on the issue, which he had received as part of my media announcement. He said that he would be downtown Saturday night reporting on the curfew ordinance, and that he would look for me there. He did eventually find me just before 10pm in front of City Hall. Details of that encounter are described later in this chronicle.

I arrived downtown at about 7:30pm, and began to distribute hand bills as I made my way to the front of City Hall, the venue I had chosen for the protest. When I got there, I saw concrete lamp fixtures that seemed ideal for posting announcements about the event. I began to tape hand bills, editorials, and a poster to the concrete lamp fixtures adjacent to City Hall. Just as I was affixing the last of the hand bills, I heard a voice that I’ve grown deeply to despise over the past 24 hours – that of Mr. [name omitted pending further consideration], a bicycle cop who’s unprofessional and unconscionable actions would lead to my arrest some hours later. To Mr. [omitted], a near perfect foil for Gentleman Good Cop McLaughlin, I have assigned the moniker “Bicycle Bad Cop.”

Bicycle Bad Cop’s sharply-toned introductory comments boomed over my shoulder: “I’m going to watch you take every single one of these down and throw them in the trash. Right now!” I turned to see a threatening grimace flaming from an animated middle-aged figure. This, I thought, was a man who relished in intimidating civilians. He seemed almost disappointed when I told him I didn’t know that this kind of posting was illegal, and immediately began taking everything down. This I did in short order, occasionally enduring Bad Cop’s rambling lectures about “doing his job” intermixed with overt threats to burden me with a citation. Any attempt to discuss the matter was perceived as “back talk,” quickly interrupted with said threats and lectures.

After removing and disposing of all the items I had posted, I proceeded to the West End of Greenville, distributing hand bills and engaging in debate along the way. In distributing protest materials, I did not discriminate based on age, sex, or race. I handed them out to everyone, and found that opinions on the issue pro and con were roughly a 50/50 spread. As I reached the entrance to Reedy River Park, the younger demographic became more prominent. Many youths, above and below the age of consent, expressed concerted agreement, and some said they intended to attend the demonstration.

The police presence in the West End was impressive – I saw no less than 10 officers in the vicinity of Reedy River Park, many of whose vehicles were parked in the middle of the road on the Main St. bridge over the Reedy. This, I thought, is the appropriate magnitude of rights-protecting civil servants to control the specter of civil disorder that necessarily must accompany explosive commercial growth, the sort of which the West End has been a prime example in recent years.

In the course of distributing information and debating with West End patrons, I had the opportunity to discuss the issue with a few police officers who were manning the fort. One officer in particular – an Asian gentleman with a confident voice and professional demeanor – offered his views on the subject, which were contrary to my own. While I disagreed with his conclusions, I greatly appreciated his efforts to articulate his position in a firm, respectful, and thoughtful manner.

Other of Greenville’s finest listened on, but none came to the forefront to concur with my views. In several discrete (read “unofficial”) conversations with police officers over the past few days, I’ve discovered that a significant number, perhaps a majority, agree with my position – that the answer to this “emergency” is more and better funded cops, not more laws. I made this point in my editorial, but it bears emphasis: if the City had kept police funding on par with the explosive growth of the West End, this issue would likely never have become an “emergency.”

I suddenly ran out of hand bills, and walked briskly back to my car to get more. As I passed City Hall (whether on the way to my car, or on the way back, I do not recall), I was approached by Bicycle Bad Cop and another officer who I believe was his immediate superior (Bad Cop Boss?). This new officer indicated his intent to allow the protest to take place, given that City picketing ordinances were obeyed. I assured him that I had reviewed the ordinances provided by Major McLaughlin and fully intended to comply. Our discussion was amicable until he asked me if I planned to instruct any minors to leave the protest at 10pm. “No,” I said, “In all honesty I planned this as an act of civil disobedience. I will inform any minors present of the content of the curfew ordinance, and if they ask my opinion I would advise them to stay.”

Bad Cop Boss then became agitated, informing me that if I proceeded as planned, I would put myself and any minors in attendance at risk of detention or arrest. He asked if I was willing to go to jail for this cause. “Yes,” was my firm reply, though I indicated that I didn’t expect it would come to that, as the protest was planned with the knowledge and advisement of the Greenville PD and was intended to be extraordinarily docile by any modern standard of protest intensity. (This exchange constitutes, in my mind, the entire body of evidence which could be used to “prove” my guilt. Neither of these officers, nor anyone else, ever observed me actively advising the course of civil disobedience to anyone.) But Boss’s words resonated in my mind, and I was forced to reconsider.

For the next several minutes, as I walked back along the Main St. drag towards Reedy River Park, I did not speak to anyone or distribute any hand bills. For a few seconds, I considered abandoning the entire project and simply standing by at the protest site to inform attendants that it was canceled. But I had already distributed so many pamphlets, and had invested so much of my heart and soul into this, that I decided instead to alter my approach in announcing the protest to young-appearing individuals.

From that point on, whenever I spoke to people about the protest, I warned them that there might be trouble if they were minors and stayed there after 10pm. I explained the letter of the curfew ordinance, based on the information supplied by the City Council’s website. My understanding of the ordinance, which I communicated to all listeners, was this: minors are not allowed to be in downtown after 10pm without supervision of a legal guardian. Young-appearing individuals may be subject to police inquiry and asked to provide proof of age. If no identification is available, or if an individual readily admits that he is underage, then the police will ask him to leave the area and give him the opportunity to do so. If the individual refuses to leave or comes back, then he may be subject to detention at City Hall until his guardian[s] arrive to pick him up.

I advised any young-appearing potential protesters that they would likely be questioned by police in reference to the curfew ordinance. When questioned by police, I told them, they should have the opportunity to make a decision: either leave immediately without consequence, or stay and risk detainment. I made no suggestion as to which alternative was preferable for any particular individual. In one or two cases, in response to direct questions, I confessed that if I were a minor present at the protest, I would consider “sitting-in” as a form of civil disobedience, and risk detainment. But I did not actively recommend this course of action to anyone at any time. I implored those present to use their own judgment, and to take into consideration the wishes and wisdom of their parents.

As I walked back to City Hall, my confidence began to mount. I believed that this protest could be executed peacefully and to positive effect. The wind in my sails waned significantly, however, when by 9:40pm rain had begun to fall and no other protesters had showed up. As I continued to make my protest signs, I resolved to take heart in my efforts no matter the result. Even in the worst case scenario I could then imagine: that I would stand alone in the rain with a sign in each arm, a seeming raving lunatic in a sea of Greenville patrons – I would still take pride in what I had attempted to accomplish.

A few minutes later, my spirits rose again as a few passersby offered to help make signs. They were on their way to a previous appointment and couldn’t stay, but I greatly appreciated their help and moral support. A few minutes after that, a pair of young gentlemen walked by who expressed excitement at what I was planning. I had already made at least ten signs, and I told them to feel free to hold them up proudly, or to write any message they chose (barring profanity) on blank poster-boards with the permanent Sharpie markers I had brought along. They each opted for a pre-made sign and held them high for the viewing of auto and pedestrian traffic (while being careful not to obstruct such traffic, per my request). One of the young men commented that he had never before exercised his 1st Amendment Rights, and told me through grinning teeth that doing so “[felt] really good.” If nothing else positive ever comes out of the events of this past Saturday night, I consider this one sentiment to be well-worth my night in jail.

By about 9:55pm, at least a dozen individuals had stopped to pick up signs or make their own. We had a burgeoning protest on our hands. This is when I first saw Mr. Richard Walton of The Greenville News. Or rather, he saw me and asked if I was Dan Edge the protest organizer. I pled guilty as charged, and he began to interview me in a manner similar to our previous phone conversation. Consequently, I gave similar answers, along with extrapolations and clarifications gleaned from the evening’s experiences.

At one point, I noticed a pair of police officers approach the protesters nearest me and advise them to stay within a certain area, so as not to obstruct pedestrian traffic. I paused my interview with Mr. Walton to ask the officers to repeat their instructions, so I could make sure that I fully understood their efforts to maintain order. I felt that it was, in large part, my personal responsibility to ensure that the protest proceeded within the bounds of City law. When hecklers in a passing car elicited a profane reply from one of the protesters, I made it clear to the young man that any use of profanity would be counter-productive to the cause. I joked that any lawlessness would elicit a response from the 6’ tall, bald redneck that planned the event. Though my comments were purely in jest, as I had complete confidence that the cops could and would prevent any outbreak of civil unrest, I was more than willing to help prevent and contain any lawlessness myself, in the extraordinarily unlikely event that such was necessary.

At about 10:15pm, I walked with Mr. Walton over to another group of protesters who had taken station in the area adjacent to the Poinsett Hotel. I recognized one of the non-protester onlookers as a gentleman who had expressed contrary views to mine during my previous romp around the city. I jokingly suggested that Mr. Walton interview this “counter-protester” for an alternative view. The gentleman responded that my position was “too stupid” to warrant debate, and that the “kids” sitting near him were too young and ignorant to offer any worthwhile opinion on the matter. At this point I addressed the group of young men, two of whom were destined to be detained by Bicycle Bad Cop, saying: “In my experience, if someone criticizes your beliefs, not by making a reasoned argument, but by claiming that you are too stupid or ignorant to wager an opinion,” at this point I spoke a little louder to drown out the “counter-protester” turned heckler’s derogatory comments, “then the best course of action is to ignore his words, as if nothing has been said.” Which, indeed, nothing has – nothing worthy of reply, anyway.

I continued to talk with Mr. Walton, the clock now reaching critical mass, approaching 10:25pm. This is when the proverbial dung hit the draft. Bicycle Bad Cop, seeing his opportunity to engage in a tour-de-force of rampaging rights-trampling, burst onto the scene. In fact, many police officers had arrived in short order, and they began to make inquiries of the youthful-looking men and women regarding their age. Several admitted that they were minors, were asked to leave, and did so immediately and peacefully. The two young men who were first to pick up posters in protest, in my view learning a valuable lesson in 1st Amendment expression, were the first to leave. The smiles thrown my way as they departed, posters still in hand, were to me another highlight of the evening’s events.

But then things started to turn ugly. Bicycle Bad Cop roared toward the stage where three young men sat holding signs and demanded that they submit to immediate police inquiry…”NOW!” I quickly found that “YOU!” and “NOW!” were Bad Cop’s two favorite words, especially when bellowed at high volume along with a withering, threatening gaze. Over the next 60 seconds, one could easily characterize Bad Cop’s seething string of commands as a generic, cartoon-inspired cacophony of malevolence: “YOU! [Yabba Dabba Do It!] NOW!” And he found ample opportunity to indulge in his belligerent manner of issuing intimidating commandments. Since the next few moments are critical to the outcome of the evening, I will chronicle them as accurately and specifically as I can. After confirming the guilt implicit in their age, Bad Cop addressed the three young men:

Bicycle Bad Cop (BBC): “YOU! Get out of here! NOW! YOU! [Addressing other bystanders] Get Back! NOW!”

Frightened Young Men: “OK, OK…We’re leaving.”

This next serious of events is particularly crucial to understanding how the evening unfolded as it did. The three young men rose to leave, but one of them found himself temporarily blocked in. His two friends had identified creases at their flanks and escaped, but other police responded to Bad Cop’s bellowing and began to close in. The remaining youth, eyeing an opening in the melee, rose to leave with haste. Literally less than 10 seconds had passed in the interim. But then he made a critical mistake, at least in the eyes of the BBC: he turned to face me, said “Thanks,” handed me back the poster I had given him earlier, then whirled around to make good his escape. Apparently, this was all the provocation needed to effect his detainment. The proceeding moments went by with confusing rapidity, filled with more “YOUs” and “NOWs” than I care to count, but I remember them well enough for an accurate telling of the events. Here is a transcript from memory following the unfortunate youth’s unforgivable sin of offering his thanks before departing:

-------------------------------------------

Future Detainee #1: Thanks. [Hands protest poster to me and turns to leave.]

Bicycle Bad Cop (BBC): YOU! You are now being detained! I told you to leave! You are being detained!

Now Detainee #1: Are you serious? Sir, I was just trying to leave, really! Are you serious? I wasn’t…

BBC: Shut your mouth! You are being detained!

Dan Edge: Hey! He was just trying to leave. He was just saying “thanks” and handing me the pos…

BBC: YOU! [Addressing me] Step away, right NOW! I said right NOW! YOU! [Now addressing Mr. Walton] Back away, right NOW! YOU! [Addressing other random passersby] step back NOW!

Detainee #1: [Continues to express shocked disbelief, declaring his innocence and his intent to comply with BBC’s threatening commands. His “back talk” was met with more intimidating verbal assaults from BBC until he was seemingly cowed.]

Future Detainee #2: [Arrives back on the scene less than a minute later, having noted that his friend was not in tow.] Hey, what happened? We were just leaving…

BBC: YOU! You were told to leave! You are now being detained!

Now Detainee #2: What? But I was just…

BBC: Shut your mouth! You were told to leave and refused! You are being detained! Step over there, NOW!

Dan Edge: [To Mr. Walton] Can you believe this? That kid was just trying to leave! All he did was say “thanks” and give me the poster…

BBC: [Now addressing me] YOU! Shut your mouth! NOW! Stand right there! Don’t move! I’ll deal with YOU in a minute!

Dan Edge: By what right are you detaining me here? By what right do you order me not to speak? What am I being charged with?

BBC: We’ll figure that out in a minute. I’m going to go deal with these minors, who are now under detention, then I’ll talk to my superior and we’ll figure out what you’re being charged with. But right now, if you know what’s good for you, you’ll sit right there and keep your mouth shut. Earlier, you said you respected my uniform and my need to do my job. I’m just doing my job. Just sit down right there! NOW!

Dan Edge: Listen, this guy [referring to Mr. Walton] is a journalist. Are you saying I’m not allowed to speak to the press?

BBC: You are now in my custody. You can either sit right there and keep your mouth shut, or I will put you in hand cuffs and throw you in a squad car right now. Is that what you want?

Dan Edge: Hmmm… [Considering the inevitability of arrest] I’ll have to think about that…

BBC: There’s nothing to think about! I’ve taken you into my custody! Now I’m going to deal with those detainees, and I’ll be back to deal with YOU in a minute. Sit right there!

Mr. Walton: [Stands idly by, complying with the order to step back a few feet, a seeming look of shocked disbelief on his face.]

Other of Greenville’s Finest: [Some, especially younger officers, share the look of shocked disbelief, but quickly come to the aid of their colleague Bicycle Bad Cop, and do their duty to maintain order in the chaos and confusion.]

Adjacent Officer: [Addressing Mr. Walton and a camera crew setting up nearby] I’m gonna have to ask you folks to step back a bit. [Continues to give firm but polite instructions.]

-------------------------------------------

After this, I was escorted to a squad car, hand-cuffed, and hauled off to jail, where I spent most of the next 17 hours in a detainment cell drunk tank. My experiences there are potentially relevant, but not critical to the essence of the story outlined above. I may continue this chronicle in the near future, and tell the rest of the tale up until my release from jail Sunday afternoon.

I challenge any of those present – including police officers, journalists, the detained youths, or uninvolved bystanders – to dispute the accuracy of this version of the events. I may not have remembered everything perfectly (it would be impossible for me to recall every single word said in unfailing detail), but this is what happened. I assert that this telling of Saturday night’s unfortunate events is the most sincere, most accurate, most detailed account that will ever be presented – which is why I felt so strongly the need to disclose the truth.

I have more to say on this matter, including the lessons learned from these past few days’ experiences. I acknowledge some errors of judgment on my part in planning this protest; in particular I wish I had had the forethought to schedule it a few hours earlier so that minors could attend without risk of being detained. I will be posting another article within the next few days, outlining my preliminary evaluations of the police’s response to what happened (it is my contention that the vast majority of Greenville’s finest acted most honorably, with a distinction proper to their uniforms), the media reports, particularly of those who were present at the incident (I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt at present, but it seems to me that some crucially relevant facts about what happened were conspicuously absent from news reports), and the media and public responses I have witnessed thus far.

Thanks for reading!

--Dan Edge

"Emergency" Curfew Protest Report: Preview

2009-09-06T15:47:00.002-06:00

The past 24 hours have been an interesting experience. Last night, I was arrested for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor."

Distinctively absent from this video is my only statement to the camera, "I have been forbidden from speaking to the press." Just before I was arrested , I had been speaking to a journalist who was interviewing me. After policemen started detaining the two teens, who had been trying to leave as asked, one officer told me to "Sit down and Shut up!" "This man is a journalist," I said. "Are you telling me I can't speak with the press?" His reply, "You're in my custody now. You can either shut your mouth or I will cuff you and throw you in a squad car right now." It was this exchange which precipitated my (un-aired) comments to the camera.

I will post a more extensive chronicling of my experience over the next few days, but I want to set the record straight on a few points right now. From my comments on the Channel 7 news video:

"I was the adult who organized the protest. I did not encourage any minors to ignore orders from police. All of those who were asked to leave did so peacefully. The first teenager who was detained had complied immediately when asked to leave. His unforgivable sin was to turn his head my way, say “Thank You,“ hand me back the protest sign I had given him, and begin to walk away. Based on those actions, a malevolent, disrespectful police officer began screaming, “You’re being detained! You were told to leave! You’re being detained!“ About 30 seconds later, one of the young man’s friends walked back towards the group to see what had happened to his buddy. The same unprofessional public servant leapt into action again, screaming, “I told you to leave! You’re being detained!“ It was on the basis of these two detainments that I was arrested for “contributing to the delinquency of a minor.“ I spent 17 hours in jail before my arraignment with a judge, who promptly released me. I will publish a chronicle of my experiences over the past 24 hours on my blog, http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com, where you can also find an editorial arguing my position on this issue."

—Dan Edge

"Emergency" Curfew Protest -- Poster Ideas

2009-09-04T20:09:00.002-06:00

Short, Sweet, and Universal:

• I Don’t Need a Nanny
• NO to “Emergency” Curfew
• Live Free or Die Hard
• NO to Nanny State, DOWN with Big Brother
• None of Your Damned Business

For Youth:

• <-- Responsible, Law-Abiding Citizen
• Youth ≠ Deviant
• Young, Ethical, and Proud
• You Are Not My Daddy
• “Give Us Us Free!” -- Amistad

For Adults:

• Greenville Born and Raised, Downtown Nightlife Approved
• You Are Not My Son’s/Daughter’s Mommy/Daddy
• You Protect My Rights, I’ll Protect My Kids

Constitutional and Historical:

• Unite or Die
• Freedom Fighter
• “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…To Secure These Rights, Governments are Instituted Among Men” – Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
• “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!” – Patrick Henry
• “Any Society That Would Give Up a Little Liberty to Gain a Little Security Will Deserve Neither and Lose Both.” – Benjamin Franklin
• “Liberty Means Responsibility. That is Why Most Men Dread It.” – George Bernard Shaw

Messages to Political Leadership:

• We Need More Cops, Not More Laws
• Explosive Growth + Insufficient Police Support = Civil Unrest
• Knox is Knot My Daddy
• The “Emergency” Curfew: City Council’s Admission of Poor City Management
• Permanent Curfew for Political Nannies
• You Asked For a Bigger Downtown, and You Got It. What’s the Problem?
• Do Your Job, City Council: Protect Our Rights, Don’t Trample Them
• City Council – This is Our Downtown, Not Yours

Support of Greenville Downtown and Police:

• We ♥ The New Downtown
• We ♥ Greenville Cops
• Greenville, SC – The New Cultural Center of South Carolina

NO to the Nanny State, NO to the "Emergency Curfew"

2009-09-04T16:17:00.003-06:00

In a knee-jerk reaction to the unlawfulness of a deviant minority, this week the Greenville City Council passed an “emergency” curfew, forbidding minors to hang out or cruise through downtown Greenville after 10pm on weekend nights. This act, which council members have threatened to make permanent, restricts the liberty of all Greenville youth, most of whom are responsible, law-abiding individuals. The same fallacious justification – that if some few in society choose to abuse their liberties, then the government must restrict the liberty of all – has been used for decades to curtail individual rights, like the right to bear arms, all over the country.

South Carolina is one of the last bastions of Constitutional liberty left in the U.S., but recently we’ve begun stampeding towards the Nanny State mentality of our Northern and West Coast kinsmen. Many people in our great state still value individual liberty, personal responsibility, and Constitutional principles. But the tide is turning, as evidenced by the Big Brother solution proposed by the city leadership to deal with today’s “emergency.”

As Greenville grows, so will the risk of deviant youth wrecking havoc on city streets. But so too will grow the potential cultural, social, and educational benefits of the downtown experience. Along with many other Greenville natives, I was greatly enriched by experiences, conversations, and new friends discovered in downtown Greenville – some even after (gasp!) 10pm on a weekend night – and I never committed a crime or created a nuisance there. These experiences enriched my life and contributed to making me into the cultured, responsible adult I am today. It would be a great shame to take that same opportunity away from responsible young men and women, especially in a time when Greenville is becoming more and more a rich source of southern culture.

The only legitimate purpose of an “emergency curfew” would be to give the City time to figure out how better to perform its job: protecting the individual and property rights of downtown businesses and patrons. This manufactured “emergency” is tantamount to an admission that the City is unable or unwilling to do so. In either case, one must assume, downtown Greenville is a dangerous place to be avoided by all. I propose an alternative solution: keep the police presence in downtown on par with the population and commercial growth in the area. The City Council ought to do its job and protect our rights instead of trampling on them.

I am planning a sit-in protest for tomorrow night (Saturday, 9/5), to begin at 10pm at the intersection of Main St. and Court St. I encourage like-minded advocates of freedom and responsible southern youth to join me in this act of civil disobedience. Join me in saying “No” to the Nanny State, ”No” to violence, vandalism, and substance abuse, and “Yes” to the freedom to live and the liberty to learn.

Dan Edge, Greenville, SC
i.am.dan.edge@gmail.com

Dan Edge is a Greenville native, a graduate of the University of South Carolina with a BA in Philosophy, a student of Constitutional principles, and an ardent advocate of liberty. He is not affiliated with any political party or public advocacy group.

Responsible Southern Youths Unite! -- Say NO to the "Emergency" Curfew

2009-09-04T16:03:00.004-06:00

Please join us on Saturday, September 5th @ 10pm for a sit-in protest at the intersection of Main St. and Court St. If you are part of the vast majority of southern youth who are responsible, law-abiding individuals – if you are a freedom-loving adult who was culturally enriched by experiencing downtown Greenville’s nightlife as a minor – if you agree that the unlawfulness of a deviant minority is no justification to restrict the liberties of the rights-respecting majority – then please join us in protesting the Nanny State mentality inherent in the City’s “Emergency” Curfew initiative. Join us in saying “No” to the Nanny State, ”No” to violence, vandalism, and substance abuse, and “Yes” to the freedom to live and the liberty to learn.

Feel free to bring your own signs, since only a limited number will be available. Copy and distribute this flier at your leisure. Snacks, cameras, and musical instruments are all good items to bring. We will be happy to have you, provided you agree to the following conditions:

• No violence of any kind
• No vandalism or property damage of any kind
• No drugs or alcohol – anyone appearing intoxicated will be asked to leave
• No heckling or provocation of police officers – we are here to protest peacefully and promote the liberty of responsible, law-abiding youth
• No badgering of downtown patrons beyond a polite offer to distribute a pamphlet and/or explain the reasoning behind our display of civil disobedience
• No interference with auto or pedestrian traffic – if a cordoned area is provided by the police, we will remain inside it

For more information contact Dan Edge at: i.am.dan.edge@gmail.com

Football Time '09 -- The Musical

2009-09-03T18:42:00.005-06:00

OK, so I went overboard today and made a song out of my Football Time '09 Chipmunk Christmas idea. This is my first attempt at recorded music, track mixing, audio editing, harmonizing, etc. Not perfect but sounds alright for 2 hours of work. All lyrics, vocals, guitar, production, and editing by Dan Edge.

Here's the lyrics:

----------------------------------------

Hey Dan, why don’t you and your momma sing that Football song y’all wrote this week. The Gamecocks are playin’ in their first game tonight, and I bet they’d shore appreciate that song. Dan? Dan! DAN!!!

OK!!!

Football, football fall is here
Time for cook-outs, time for cheer
Pound the run or bomb the pass
Figure out that offense fast

May need to replace Delhomme
Me I want a Super Bowl
Championship of SEC
Please Gamecocks win for me!

Clemson, Clemson Tigers time
This team too I claim for mine
Greenville born, SC degree
Contradicting Loyalties

Dominate the ACC
At season’s end we’re enemies
But till then we can be friends
Please Tigers fight to win!

--Dan Edge

Football Time '09

2009-09-03T08:43:00.003-06:00

Carolina Gamecock Football begins tonight! In honor of my favorite season -- for the beautiful colors as well as the football -- this morning I (re)wrote a famous holiday tune. I call this Football Time '09, sung to the tune of The Chipmunk Christmas Song:

Football, football time is here
Time for cook-outs, time for cheers
I’ve been patient for the fall
Kill that man who holds the ball

We may need to replace Delhomme
Me I want a Super Bowl
Championship of SEC
Please Gamecocks win for me!

---------------------------------------

And never fear, faithful readers (all 4 of you). Praise Galt for Football VII will proceed as scheduled, not two weeks into the season like last year.

--Dan Edge

Symbolism: A Mixture of Meaning in Mettle

2009-09-01T12:26:00.005-06:00

*Note: The above image is a photograph of the artifact which inspired this poem, hanging on my own chest. It is a medallion I found when cleaning out my parent’s attic. On the reverse side, it bears the inscription, “To Beverly, From Roy, With Love.” It was a gift my father created for my mother before his untimely death in 1985. My mother gave it to me, and over the past few days, I’ve conducted research on the meaning and source of the symbol – if any. An article describing my findings and their symbolic connections to my own life will be forthcoming within the next few days.

-----------------------------------------------

A new chapter in my life begins
The time to wallow in Hades sorrow
With head in hands for former sins
Is history now – today is tomorrow

A search for symbols to personify
Rebirth of mirthful personality
Revealed a motif etched in steel
My birthright and my family seal

A long dead father’s form of love
Bartered for my mother’s kiss
Melted, molded, made into
A symbol for a son amiss

A longing look at what was found
Remembrance of long time love lost
She bequeathed a seeming simple seal
A chain-linked loop of steel embossed

Smelted with a workman’s hands
Meaning mixed in metal’s skin
My father poured in lover’s gift
All the very best in him:

A mind of mettle, like a snare
To trap Demeter ladies fair
Southern gentlemanly attitude
And metallurgical aptitude

All these things my father poured
Into a molten mixing kettle
Resulting in a symbol with
More meaning than mere metal

Within the hearth of beating heart
I feel the Phoenix Flame arise
The Hero’s Hike to Passion’s Peak
Brings reborn Hephaestus eyes

To the meaning melted in
This round medallion on my breast
I add my soaring spirit’s sails
A stolid mast where steel meets flesh

I stand now on the precipice
Of passion’s deep with future bright
A symbol of metamorphosis
New life in me begins this night!

--Dan Edge

**Acknowledgements: Special thanks to Mom and Kim, whose love and support have helped make these lines a reality. To Carol, Fred, and Sherry, to whom I will be paying it backwards for the rest of my life. To Chad, Cory, Dave, Dorian, Kelly, Lou, Lynn, Melanie, Nancy, Ryan, Stella, and Todd, whose friendship and love have meant so much. To rekindled and newfound friends Curt, Greer, Kate, Lean Mean Dr. Tamara, Natalie, Sultry Leslie Sayrah, and the rest of the EC Crew, whose benevolence served to stoke the Phoenix Flames. To Jessica Jasmine the Boar-Hunting Heroine, who provided inspiration in her own unique way.

***This poem may not be submitted for publication without consent of the author. Permission is granted to publish on personal blogs and online discussion forums – provided it is reproduced in its entirety in original formatting, complete with acknowledgements and this message – along with a link to my own blog, The Edge of Reason. Comments are welcome. My email address is: i.am.dan.edge@gmail.com.

EC Playhouse: A Musical Romp in Sunny-Sided Theater

2009-08-26T13:14:00.003-06:00

This past Friday I had the pleasure of attending Electric City (EC) Playhouse’s musical production of Keep on the Sunny Side. I was so enamored with the story, the songs, and the cast that today I am taking on the role of amateur theater critic. Keep on the Sunny Side is a touching, knee-slapping, benevolent, and delightfully executed biographical musical. The history of The Carter Family is an inspiring tale in its own right, but coupled with timeless folk classics performed by a talented ensemble cast, Sunny Side yields the perfect recipe for an enriching theatrical experience.

The Carter Family began recording music during the late 1920’s, and several Carter family members, including the late June Carter Cas h, continued to popularize that distinctive backwoods Virginia sound throughout the 20th century. Many Carter Family songs – such as Wildwood Flower, Can the Circle Be Unbroken, and (of course) Keep on the Sunny Side – are staples of Americana which have been covered and performed countless times across the decades.

One could offer no finer review of Keep on the Sunny Side than did the sold-out house of audience members through their reactions to the show. From the entertaining preshow performance (by Jimmy O Trio and friends) until the closing curtain call, audience members could not refrain from smiling, laughing, clapping, and singing along. Having had very limited exposure to this genre of music, I found myself tempted to leap into dance with each new song.

Some in the audience must have been old enough to recall when these songs were originally recorded, and they evidently felt that the EC Playhouse cast honored The Carter Family through their performance. Of particular note were the reactions of one elderly gentleman in the front row. He was clearly having trouble maintaining his posture, and at a few points during the show he struggled to keep his eyes open. But all the while a reminiscent smile shone through his weathered face, and with one hand rapping rhythmically against his knee, he never missed a beat.

The touching life story and endearingly simple folk songs of The Carter Family were faithfully executed by a strong ensemble cast. Sara Carter (played by Leslie Hardigree), wife of A.P. Carter and one of the original Carter Family members, was to me the central figure in the story. While Mrs. Hardigree performed well with the other actors, her strongest moments were Sara’s soliloquies and solo musical performances. Mrs. Hardigree appeared possessed by Sara Carter’s spirit, especially when emoting her more lamentatious times. Upon seeing the glistening moisture in Sara’s eyes as she struggles with a failing marriage, one cannot help but well with tears of sympathy. Mrs. Hardigree is also blessed with an angel’s voice. Her powerful range and emotive inflections add artistic beauty to the role.

A.P. (played by Keith Parker) and Maybelle Carter (played by Gail Brown) round out the original Carter Family cast. Both possess lovely voices and considerable skill with the guitar, especially Mrs. Brown whose performance belies extensive musical training. A.P. is at his most endearing as he courts young Sara outside her mountain home. Though not a young man himself, Mr. Parker is as believable portraying a youthful gentleman caller as he is portraying a recently departed soul. Aside from strutting her considerable musical aptitude, Mrs. Brown’s most memorable moments come as Maybelle comforts her dear sister Sara with feminine sympathy and sensible advice.

Strong performances in supporting roles add wonderful depth to the play. Wailing away with a high-amplitude and outrageously accented vocal performance, Janette Carter (played by Paula Dolittle) struggles to keep the Carter Family spirit alive. Even small bit parts, such as Timothy Vin’s portrayal of the long-haired, backwoods preacher presiding over A.P.’s funeral, contribute significantly to the show.

Special mention must go to Dr. Brinkley (played by Guy Harvley), his trusty assistant (played by Todd Barnette), and the play’s director Jimmy Burdette for the brilliantly-paced transition from Sara’s tearful marriage farewell to the hilarious antics of XERA Megawatt Radio. After a powerfully emotional set of scenes, the audience hungers for refreshing levity to clear their theatrical palates – and the director kindly delivers. Mr. Harvley displays his vocal versatility by portraying a heavily accented Texas con man imitating various other outrageous characters over the radio waves – while Mr. Barnette plays the semi-straight man, a perfect foil for Dr. Brinkley’s mischievous depravity. Considering the impeccable comic timing between them, one suspects that these two men have worked together before. They elicited hearty waves of laughter from the audience at all the right moments.

In closing, I want to express my sincere thanks to the EC Playhouse cast and crew for enriching my soul with a new (to me) classic set of musical masterpieces. I’ve been listening to original Carter Family recordings every day since I saw the play, and have been touched by their sincerity, simplicity, and benevolence. I’ve even begun learning how to play some of the songs on my guitar. Though the older crowd dominated attendance at last Friday’s performance, I have no doubt but that this music will live on forever. We will pass it on to our children, who will pass it on to our grandchildren, and so on, for as long as humanity endures. Beautiful classics like these never die. Now I’ll be doggone if that ain’t a Sunny-Sided sentiment!

--Dan Edge

Virtual Objectivist Club

2009-08-26T08:55:00.001-06:00

From the Objectivist Club Network (OCN):
-----------------------------------

I helped start the Objectivist Club Network (OCN), an organization dedicated to helping all Objectivist Campus Clubs. OCN is not affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, although we support them and regularly communicate with them to ensure our respective organizations are not duplicating efforts.

Recently we've expanded our efforts to solve a new problem: there are students interested in joining an Objectivist club where no club exists. Some of these students start their own club, but others don't have time to start a club or do not find enough participants on campus to form a club.

We've created the Virtual Objectivist Club (VOC) for these students -- a phone-based discussion group dedicated to the study of Objectivism. Meetings will be weekly, beginning this September, each moderated by an experienced Objectivist. The group is open to any current students who would like to learn more about Objectivism.

My request: Please help spread the word to any students you know who may be interested in learning more about Objectivism. The deadline for applying to the VOC is August 31st. Students can learn more and apply at: http://www.oclubs.org/voc

Please let me know if you have any questions and we greatly appreciate you sharing this with others!

Keith & the OCN Team

A Benevolent Universe -- The Perseid Meteor Shower

2009-08-12T15:38:00.009-06:00

Atlas Shrugged Classes Up Amazon

2009-03-17T21:18:00.002-06:00

I was doing a search of the recent Amazon sales figures for Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and stumbled upon a marvelous discovery: In Amazon's "Literature and Fiction/Classics" category, Atlas Shrugged is the #1 best-seller!

Even better, the #2 best-selling "Classic" is also Atlas Shrugged, just another version of the paperback. The #3 best-seller is The Federalist Papers. And the #4 best-seller is, amazingly, Atlas Shrugged again!

Rounding out the top ten are Fahrenheit 451 (#7), Thomas Paine's Common Sense (#8), and Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead (#9).

People are starting to sit up and pay attention to what is going on in the world around them.

Woo hoo!

--Dan Edge

New York Tea Party!

2009-02-26T19:59:00.002-05:00

On February 19, 2009, Rick Santelli of CNBC News called for a Chicago Tea Party to oppose the Stimulus Bill and the socialist philosophy it represents. Over the past week, Tea Party protests have already been organized in 40 cities across the nation. I'm happy to say that City Hall Park (Facebook link) in New York City will be the site of one such protest. It's happening this Saturday (2/28) from 2pm to 3pm at City Hall Park in Manhattan.

My wife and I will be there, with poster signs and tea bags in hand. Several of our friends are coming, too, and we're going out to dinner after the protest. I hope to see you there!

Spread the word...

--Dan Edge

Greenspan: A Bigger Traitor Than I Thought

2009-02-21T11:27:00.004-05:00

Should I not have been surprised that Alan Greenspan is now calling for the nationalization of US banks? I never expected the man to fall so low. My wife Kelly says it didn't surprise her, but I was truly shocked.

What a f**king traitor. We need a YAAFM Greenspan.

--Dan Edge

Distribute The Undercurrent

2009-01-30T07:04:00.002-05:00

The Undercurrent (TU) is an independent, student-run Objectivist newspaper distributed twice a year at college campuses across America. TU is currently looking for distributors and donors for its Spring 2009 edition.

If you would like to distribute, please visit http://the-undercurrent.com/order and buy your copies of TU today. If money is an issue, please email us at distributors@the-undercurrent.com. There is limited funding from donors for students who want to buy and distribute TU but cannot afford to do so. If you're part of an Objectivist campus club, you may want to see if your college will fund distribution of TU as a club activity.

If you don't have time to distribute, but would like to help us spread rational ideas in academia, you may want to consider donating to TU. A relatively small amount of money can make a big difference. For example, donating $26.50 gets 250 copies of TU distributed at a college campus in United States! And because TU is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, donations are tax deductible. Please visit http://the-undercurrent.com/donate/ and contribute directly using PayPal.

If you have any questions about distributing or donating, please email us at contact@the-undercurrent.com.

Spreading rational ideas on college campuses is critical to making this world a better place.

Thank you for your support.

The Undercurrent

Is Barack Obama a Socialist?

2008-10-21T06:50:00.003-05:00

The charge that Barack Obama is a socialist comes from several different sources: journalists, politicians, and many Objectivists among them. "Socialist" is used as a negative pejorative term, meant to associate Obama with bloodthirsty savages like Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao. Most who make the charge do so in an attempt to differentiate Obama from John McCain, ostensibly to advocate a McCain presidency. McCain may be a Big Government Republican with a Neo-Con running mate, the argument goes, but at least he's not an outright socialist like Obama.

But does the term apply?

Before one can answer that question, he must first determine what socialism is. (Note that this process is very different from determining what the meaning of the word "is" is.) So what is socialism? The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines socialism this way:

"1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

Socialism is a political-economic system in which the government owns and controls all property. This theory is based primarily on the work of Karl Marx, an influential German philosopher who has achieved iconic status in communist countries. Marx believed that capitalism was part of a historically inevitable series of political-economic systems that would eventually result in a classless, stateless society of communes. Socialism, he thought, was a transitionary system between capitalism and communism in which the working classes (the proletariat) would violently revolt against the wealthy (the bourgeoisie), and establish a dictatorship in which the government owned and distributed all property.

So in asking whether Obama is a socialist, one is really asking: Does Obama believe that the government should own and distribute all means of production? Does he believe that rule by the proletariat is historically inevitable? Is he planning for a violent overthrow of the incumbent capitalist system?

One could argue that the answer to the first of these questions is "yes." Obama is pushing for higher taxes and more government controls. He wants to take money from the bourgois to give it to the proletariat. But a desire for bigger government does not make one a socialist. There are many different belief systems which advocate government control over property: Facism, Sharia Law, and other forms of theology, just to name a few. All these political systems are collectivist and statist, but they are not all socialist. Socialism is something very specific, as outlined above.

My conclusion is that Obama is not a socialist, any more than McCain is a socialist. Though their rhetoric differs (in non-essential ways), they both advocate some mixture of statism and capitalism. Both will increase the size of the federal government. Both support government intervention in the banking system, as we saw a few weeks ago. Both support welfare, Medicare, and Social Security. Both support reducing "emissions" to save Mother Earth. On nearly every major policy issue, Obama and McCain are indistinguishable.

Why do I make this point so strongly? Well for one, because it makes no sense to base one's vote on misapplied terminology. The term "socialism" is being tossed around as if it's synonymous with statism. Socialism is an emotionally charged word which incites visions of the dictatorships in U.S.S.R., North Korea, and China. If you are planning to vote against Obama simply because you think him a "socialist" while McCain is not, then I advise you to reconsider.

Also, as rational men we should be specific in our identifications of ideologies and their adherents. If Ayn Rand was right, and I believe she was, then it is ideology (philosophy) which moves the world. Properly identifying ideological movements is critically important to determining in what direction a nation is moving. In my opinion, socialism is dead, and has been dead for decades. No one believes in the historical inevitability of communism any more. No one believes that the proletariat will initiate a violent overthrow of government all over the world. These ideas have been so thoroughly discredited (and even demonized in the U.S.), that no one in the Western World takes them seriously any more.

But that does not mean that statism is dead. Statism is alive and well, but in the U.S., it still lacks an integrated, organized ideological movement to serve as its vehicle. Some have argued that the Neo-cons, with their "compassionate conservatism," now qualify as the most integrated movement advocating statism. I don't know if this is true or not, but it is definitely something we should be thinking about. Throwing the "socialism" charge around only muddies the issue further.

--Dan Edge

Bailout Crack

2008-10-10T05:49:00.002-06:00

This article was posted on The Undercurrent blog. Please visit The Undercurrent for other articles on the financial crisis.

In a knee-jerk reaction to panic and fear over the current financial crisis, the government issued a $700 billion dollar bailout bill last week. Rather than considering the cause of the “toxic loans” at the heart of this crisis, Congress decided that it had to immediately do something—anything.

What politicians fail to realize, however, is that they are the ones that got us into this mess, and this bailout will only further exacerbate the problem. It is government meddling in the economy that caused the mortgage meltdown. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Fed’s ability to manipulate interest rates each have contributed handsomely to the disaster. These government policies are the primary cause of the financial crisis, yet our president and both houses of Congress agree that still more government intervention is the only solution.

It is as if a man went to the hospital with low blood pressure and a low heart rate, and the doctor prescribed crack cocaine to treat his symptoms. After all, crack will raise the patient’s heart rate and blood pressure for a while, and even give him a temporary feeling of euphoria. But over the long term, using crack will severely weaken his heart and mind, making him an easy target for any infectious disease that comes along.

This is exactly what the Bailout Bill will do: temporarily treat the symptoms while allowing the disease (government intervention in the economy) to metastasize further. The only way to preserve long-term economic health in America is to attack the disease at its source. End Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, neuter the U.S. Dept of Housing and Urban Development, repeal the Community Reinvestment Act, and take away the Fed’s power to tamper with naturally functioning markets.

--Dan Edge

Get Over Yourself!

2008-10-07T18:57:00.006-06:00

Or: Selfishness vs. Self-Centeredness in Meeting New People

For Objectivists, selfishness is a moral ideal. It is proper for man to act in his own self-interest, and his own happiness ought to be his highest moral purpose. But when it comes to interpersonal relationships, some Objectivists misconstrue the meaning of “selfishness” to mean “self-centeredness.” When meeting new people, or in building relationships, they tend to ignore the values of others. This misinterpretation of the Objectivist ethics implies a failure to recognize the great potential value of other rational beings. One who commits this error can develop and reinforce a social ineptness that cripples his ability to develop relationships.

To illustrate my point, I will take a simple example that everyone can relate to: meeting new people. How does the (rational) selfish man get to know a new person? How about the self-centered man?

[Before one can get to know new people, he must be around them. One will not meet many people by sitting around his apartment all day, every day. Some self-centered men never get to the point of meeting new people because they believe that they ought to be entirely “self-sufficient,” with no need of friendships or romantic love. But I will leave this issue aside for now, and focus on the method that a selfish vs. self-centered man uses to get to know new people.]

The self-centered man (implicitly) believes that his own thoughts, interests, and values ought to be the focus of any effort to develop a new relationship. When he meets a new person, his objective is to tell that person all about himself. “This is what I do for a living, this is what I’m passionate about, these are my interests, etc.” Of course, he will listen to what the new person has to say, but that is not his primary objective. For the self-centered man, the natural course of conversation is: I tell you as much as possible about myself, and you tell me as much as possible about yourself. The self-centered man evaluates new people, not on the basis of their values, but on how they respond to his values. For him, that is what getting to know people means.

As anyone who has met this kind of person will attest, the self-centered approach can come across as aloof, snobby, rude, or disinterested. One gets the impression: “This person is not at all interested in getting to know me, only in telling me about himself.” The self-centered man does not treat new people as potential values. Potential values are to be probed, investigated, and evaluated. How can one evaluate a new person if he makes no effort to discover that which he is evaluating? Though he may not intend it, the self-centered man sends the message that he does not see new people as a value (except as receptacles for information about himself). Not surprisingly, this turns people off.

Since many aspects of one’s personality become automatized, the self-centered man may get the feeling that he is socially awkward, but he doesn’t know why. Social ineptness due to self-centeredness can build on itself, as one automatizes the impression that new people do not value him properly. If the above example describes how you get to know new people, then I advise you to reevaluate your methodology. If one takes the self-centered approach in meeting new people, then he is more likely to be a self-centered friend and a self-centered lover. A friend who doesn’t take stake in your values is not a friend. The lover who is uninterested in your interests is a shitty boyfriend.

How then does the (properly) selfish man approach meeting new people? Because he views other human beings as potential values, he aims to explore the nature of those values. His objective is not to talk about himself, but to explore the values of others. He tries to make the new person comfortable, asks questions, and strives to relate the new person’s values to his own. Of course the selfish man will talk about himself, but that is not his primary focus. Assuming that the new person is also selfish, the probing questions will go both ways: “So what do you do when you’re not working?” “I enjoy reading adventure books like The Three Musketeers. How about you, what are you into? Etc, etc.”

If it turns out that the new person is a dud, then the selfish man has lost nothing. But if the new person is a potential friend (or lover), then he has taken the first step toward treating this person properly as a value. Such an attitude is obvious to others, and is most often greatly appreciated. If you have ever met a man who tried his best to make you comfortable, showed interest in your interests, and strived to relate your values to his -- then you know what I’m talking about. These selfish men are the very definition of social aptitude. They are the men who make friends, influence people, nail the interview, and get the girl. The selfish approach also can become automatized in the subconscious, giving one a feeling of confidence in his social interactions.

The selfishness vs. self-centeredness misunderstanding is fairly common among Objectivists. It’s an easy error to make, but it can be a difficult one to rectify. If you value relationships, make sure you take the selfish approach. And get over yourself already! :)

--Dan Edge

Praise Galt for Football VI - NCAA

2008-09-09T08:06:00.002-06:00

On to the NCAA. I'm getting a late start since it's already two weeks in to the season, but at least now I can make a more informed prediction. I'm skipping a few of the lesser Div 1 conferences (like the WAC and Mountain West) because I'm unfamiliar with them and they're unlikely to make much of an impact on the season.

ACC: Wake Forrest

For the past few years, Clemson has been picked as the favorite to win the ACC, and it stumbled out of the gate. Even if I hadn't seen the stomping the Tigers suffered at the hands of the Crimson Tide last week, I still would not have picked Clemson to win their conference. You have to beat the best to be the best, and the Tigers have consistently shown that they can't handle the pressure of being conference favorites. Wake Forrest, on the other hand, consistently outperforms preseason expectations. They step up to the challenge and win games they shouldn't. I don't know if it's the coaching, underrated recruiting, or what, but the Demon Deacons have an "it" factor that will lead them to the ACC Championship.

Big 12: Oklahoma

Oklahoma has reloaded this year, and will be as tough as ever. QB Sam Bradford threw *5* touchdown passes last week, albeit against a weaker Big East opponent. Their schedule is not all that difficult, with the only significant tests being against Texas, Texas Tech, and Kansas. If Oklahoma can get past these stumbling blocks, we may see them in the National Championship Game.

Big East: Who Cares?

After losing three of its best teams (Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Miami) to the ACC, the Big East is basically a basketball conference. Connecticut, South Florida, and West Virginia all have decent teams, but they can't compete with any of the other major conferences (with the possible exception of the ACC, which sucks this year). That said, South Florida will probably take the crown.

Big Ten: The Ohio State

The only easier pick than this one is USC in the PAC-10. Ohio State, once again, has all the makings of a National Championship contender. They're explosive on offense, devastating on defense, have plenty of depth, and are extremely well-coached. I wouldn't be surprised if Penn State gives them a run for their money, but I think Ohio State will come out on top.

Conference USA: East Carolina

What a pleasant surprise to see an unknown East Carolina program do so well against heavy-hitting out-of-conference teams. After their victories against successive ranked opponents (Virginia Tech and West Virginia), East Carolina should be favored in every game they play for the rest of the season. Lou Holtz must have taught his son (the head coach of EC) many tricks of the trade. And this from a team in tiny Greenville, NC. Go get 'em Pirates! The Flying Spaghetti Monster is pleased...

PAC-10: USC

Duh. Are there other teams in the Pac-10? If there are, I'm not aware of them.

SEC: Florida

This is the conference I know the most about, since my Carolina Gamecocks are in the SEC. Unfortunately, my only positive prediction for the poor Gamecocks is that they will knock off one ranked team this year. They play against 6 ranked teams, so god help them if they can't beat any of them. Most of the experts are picking Georgia (the #2 ranked team) to win the SEC this year. But Georgia, like Clemson, tends to under-perform the experts' predictions. They did finish the season strong last year, but they got beat by lowly South Carolina in their SEC opener. I doubt that will happen again this year, but Georgia also has to play Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and Auburn. One of these teams will take them down, probably Florida. If Georgia makes it to the SEC Championship game, they will likely have to play Auburn again. I just don't see them running this Gauntlet. My prediction: Florida vs Auburn in the SEC Championship game, with the Gators and Tim Tebow coming out on top.

National Championship Game: The Florida Gators!

I predict that the winner of Florida vs Georgia will play against the winner of Ohio State vs USC. I'm giving the nod to Florida and USC in their respective games, so I have the Gators vs the Trojans in the National Championship Game. That's a good thing for Ohio State, because it would be a shame for them to get stomped by yet another SEC team in a title game. This time, it's USC's turn to get stomped. SEC rules, and wins another National Title!

Praise Galt for Football VI

2008-09-02T08:37:00.002-06:00

This is the 6th annual edition of "Praise Galt for Football," in which I offer one educated fan's view of the upcoming NFL and NCAA football seasons. I'm going to try something a little different this year: I will pick a winner for each division (in the NFL) or conference (in the NCAA) and explain the reasoning behind my choice. Then I'll make a prediction for the Superbowl and NCAA Championship games.

NFL
--------

AFC North: Pittsburgh Steelers

My theme for this year's preview is: you have to beat the best to be the best. The Browns are the sexy pick to win the AFC North, but I can't go against a Pittsburgh team that has proven itself time and again. The Steelers are always tough on defense. They were 3rd against the run last year, and I see no reason that will change. Willie Parker is a bruising runner who will pound away between the tackles all year. But "Big Ben" Rothlisberger is the only one who can answer the question of whether the Steelers will make it deep into the playoffs. If he has a great year (like he did a few years ago with his 15-1 season), then the Steelers have a chance to go far. If not, then it will be an early playoff exit for Pittsburgh.

AFC South: Indianapolis Colts

I know, the Jags are always tough. I know, the Texans are getting better every year. But: you have to beat the best to be the best. It used to be the case that the Colts were an offensive powerhouse that scored a lot, but were easy to score against. Not any more, not with Tony Dungy at the helm. Their defense will only get better this year.

AFC East: New England Patriots

This is the easiest pick of all. The Jets could make a run for the wild card if Brett Favre picks up a new offense quickly and does his thing, but there's no way you can pick against the Pats unless the whole team gets killed in a plane crash or something. Even then, I'd fear the ghosts of New England!

AFC West: San Diego Chargers

Too much defense (even with an injured Merriman), too much LaDanian Tomlinson, and too much of a track record to pick any other team than San Diego in the AFC West. I'm very interested to see how two top draft picks play together in Oakland (Jamarcus Russel and Darren McFadden), but no one will pose a real challenge to the Chargers.

NFC North: Minnesota Vikings

I'm going with the experts on this one. Everyone is picking the Vikings in the NFC North, and I don't see any compelling reason to pick differently. Adrian Peterson looks poised to be a top fantasy pick this year, and unlike some other fantasy picks, his production will also lead to wins for his team. I still don't know much about QB Tavaris Jackson. He seems to manage the game well, but can he lead his team to a Super Bowl? Well, if Trent Dilfer can do it... The defensive front for Minnesota is nasty, which gives me more confidence in this pick.

NFC South: New Orleans Saints

I'd love to pick my Panthers for the NFC North, but the addition of TE Jeremy Shockey pushes the Saints over the edge for me. New Orleans will have an exciting offense this year, and Shockey will open up the passing game even more. Their defense is less than stellar, but I don't think anyone else in the NFC North can put up as many points as the Saints on game day. If Panthers 1st round draft picks RB Jonathan Stewart and OT Jeff Otah have stellar years (Stewart is my upset pick to win Offensive Rookie of the Year), and if Julius Peppers returns to his regular form, then the Panthers have a chance to take it.

NFC East: New York Giants

You have to beat the best to be the best, and the Giants were the best of the best last year. Got that? :) Everyone will be gunning for the Super Bowl champs, but I think they can handle the pressure. They will be weaker at defensive end with the loss of Umenyiora and Strahan, but they will still be tough on defense. Eli Manning has settled into his NFL career and will get steadier as the years go on. Success is in his blood. The Dallas Cowboys, however, might have the best offense in the NFC, will finish the season strong, and will earn a wild card spot.

NFC West: Arizona Cardinals

This is probably the division I know the least about, but I still have confidence in picking Arizona. Kurt Warner is no stranger to success, having experienced plenty of it in his career. He's an old man, but his team is primed to upset incumbent Seattle. The Seahawks have won the division for the past four years, but they haven't shown me much. The Cardinals have a pair of incredible receivers in Larry Fitzgerald and Anquon Boldin, and I believe veteran RB Edgerrin James has at least one great season left in him.

Super Bowl: New England Patriots vs Dallas Cowboys

How, you might ask, could I pick Dallas to lose their own division and then make it to the Super Bowl? Because I think they will get stronger as the season goes on. Their running game will wear defenses down in the playoffs. Tony Romo will get better and better as he begins the transformation from a young rising star to a solid veteran. Terrel Owens and Jason Witten will score many touchdowns. Pick a reason. And why New England? A better question would be: how could I pick anyone else besides New England? Even though they ended last season on a down note, they still made a run at history, and the team hasn't changed much.

New England is my pick to win yet another Super Bowl.

Stay tuned! I will handicap the NCAA football season within the next few days.

--Dan Edge

The Ponies Made Me Do It

2008-08-08T08:02:00.001-06:00

From The Undercurrent Blog:

Former NBA official Tim Donaghy was sentenced to 15 months in prison last week for gambling on NBA games, some of which he himself officiated. The interesting thing about this case is not the question of whether or not the defendant was guilty. This was not a “whodunit?” case; Donaghy openly admitted his guilt at the trial. The interesting thing was his argument for why he should not go to prison.

Donaghy’s defense: he is a gambling “addict.” In a statement filed in a Brooklyn court, treatment counselor Stephen Block said Donaghy “could not stop himself from gambling.” (See here.) According to Block, gambling is an “illness,” a “hidden disease” which compels its victim to break the law against his will. This kind of testimony was the cornerstone of Donaghy’s defense.

This view is very widespread, and is not limited to gambling. Drug abusers, alcoholics, porn fanatics, and wife-beaters all claim that their self-destructive behavior is a result of forces beyond their control.

Whatever the facts of this particular case, being an addict does not exempt a person from the law because an addict still chooses his actions.

Consider a pedophile who is sexually attracted to young children and abuses children by acting on his attraction. Whatever the cause of his desire, there is nothing inherent in the desire that necessitates his acting on it. Whatever psychological obstacles—and they may be significant—such a man has to overcome to rehabilitate his desire, he still retains the choice of whether to act on it or not.

No matter what a man’s habits or emotional state (leaving aside the truly insane), he is always capable of making a choice. The desire to commit self-destructive acts does not compel one to act. Desires can only rule the man who allows emotions to dictate his life.

--Dan Edge

Just Kidding. Sort Of...

2008-07-08T06:19:00.004-06:00

Or:

Why One Shouldn't Joke About Serious Things

When my wife's parents make jokes about me being a dumb redneck from a 3rd world country (South Carolina), it's hilarious. It's funny because it's completely ridiculous. They know that I'm an intelligent, educated young man whom they love and respect. I am the exact opposite of what their sarcastic comments indicate. The sharp contrast between the joke and reality is what makes it so funny. When they make these kinds of jokes, they are drawing attention to the fact that they love and respect me, and it makes me feel good.

But what if my in-laws actually thought I was ignorant, racist, or stupid? Their sarcasm would take on a completely different meaning. Their jokes would be a thinly veiled assault on my character. If I knew they were even partially serious when they made fun of me, then I would be offended by their comments.

To alter the example somewhat: what if I had a self-esteem problem and believed that I actually was, in part, an ignorant redneck? When my in-laws joked about it, I might feel offended, even though no offense was intended. One couldn't blame them if they didn't know I had a self-esteem issue. But what if they knew it made me uncomfortable? Should they refrain from making such jokes?

Or: what if I was relatively ignorant (as a result of poor education) or had a below-average intelligence, and my in-laws knew it? What meaning would their sarcasm have in this case?

To answer these questions, one must understand the proper role and function of humor. The rational man uses humor to ridicule evil and irrationality. Humor is an expression of one's conviction that evil is metaphysically impotent, that "[w]e never had to take any of it seriously". When my in-laws joke about where I came from, they are pretending to adopt a ridiculously irrational viewpoint: that anyone from the south is necessarily ignorant and stupid. They are making fun of irrational prejudice, and calling attention to the fact that I am the exact opposite of the prejudicial stereotype.

But if my in-laws actually accepted the irrational stereotype of southerners, then their humor would have the exact opposite meaning. To them, the evil would be me thinking I could overcome the stereotype. They would be ridiculing my belief that I am intelligent and educated. This kind of derisive sarcasm is common among college professors, as I'm sure many Objectivist students can verify. It represents the nastiest kind of metaphysical premise: hatred of the good for being the good.

Consider now the altered example, in which I am actually intelligent and educated, but have a self-esteem problem. Part of me believes that I can't overcome the stereotype of the southern country boy. One couldn't blame my in-laws if they made well-intentioned jokes that hurt my feelings. They would have no way of knowing about my self-esteem problem unless I communicated it to them. This kind of case is common because many young people retain irrational premises from their upbringing that negatively impact their self-esteem. Oftentimes, one is hurt when others make him the butt of jokes, but he doesn't say anything about it because he doesn't think he should feel offended. (I discuss this kind of error in more detail in my article Are There Bad Emotions?).

The answer here is that one should communicate to others, especially loved ones, if their jokes make him uncomfortable. If one doesn't know why it makes him uncomfortable, then he must introspect to determine the cause of these emotions. Feeling uncomfortable at being the butt of well-intentioned jokes can be a clue that an unresolved self-esteem issue exists. While he is dealing with his psychological problems, he ought to ask his loved ones not to joke about it, because to him it is a very serious issue. Otherwise, resentment and silent animosity can begin to develop in his relationships.

If one knew that his loved one had a self-esteem problem, and he joked about it anyway, then what meaning would the humor have? What evil is being ridiculed? If my in-laws knew that I was insecure about my upbringing, and joked about it anyway, then they would be making fun of my inner struggle. The evil, in their eyes, would be the fact of my self-esteem problem. But psychological problems as such are not evil, and struggling to overcome them is an effort to be admired, not ridiculed. For this reason, I consider it very rude and inappropriate for one to make fun of another's psychological problems, especially if that person has communicated that it makes him uncomfortable.

Finally, consider the example in which I am relatively ignorant or unintelligent. Assuming that my ignorance is not self-inflicted, then it would be highly inappropriate to make fun of me for it. I did not choose where I went to primary school, and my degree of intelligence is also non-volitional. So if one were to make fun of me, the evil he is ridiculing is the fact of my ignorance or lack of intelligence. But these traits are not evil as such, not if they are outside the realm of one's volition. If I saw someone making fun of a man with Downs Syndrome for being stupid - or a frail, elderly man for walking slowly - or a cripple for being confined to a wheelchair -- then I would want to punch his lights out. These kinds of jokes are the basest form of humor. It's like laughing at an innocent man on a torture rack.

While the preceding example is more clear-cut, it's not always obvious when one is using humor inappropriately. Sarcasm between friends can be great fun, but it can also be hurtful, whether well intentioned or not. The key is to keep in mind the nature of humor, identify to oneself what evils he is ridiculing, and communicate with his loved ones if their humor makes him uncomfortable.

In closing, I have a final message to my readers: You are the dumbest, smelliest, most wretched bunch of Kantian sexual deviants I've ever had the displeasure of knowing! Seriously...

--Dan Edge

SCOTUS Says: Don't Tread on My Guns!

2008-06-27T08:08:00.002-06:00

From Time.com:

"The U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 decision overturning Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban is the biggest gun rights ruling since the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. The Court had not waded into this divisive issue since 1939, when it declared, "We cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear" arms. But on Thursday the Court broke its silence to do just that, ruling for the first time that the Constitution confers an individual right to gun ownership beyond providing for "a well regulated Militia," as the amendment states."

This decision comes right in time for Independence Day. The spirit of America is still alive and kickin' -- and armed!

In other Independence Day news, the ARI has released an excellent op-ed and video titled Put the "Independence" Back in Independence Day. Check it out.

--Dan Edge

Congrats, Valedictorian! Now Get Out of Our Country

2008-06-15T17:40:00.002-06:00

This blog entry was posted on The Undercurrent blog on June 12, 2008.

A high school valedictorian in California, whose parents fled violence in Armenia when he was two years old, is being deported. Arthur Mkoyan dreams of applying to medical school after he finishes high school next week, but instead immigration officials plan to send him back to Armenia ten days after graduation.

Arthur has petitioned California Senator Dianne Feinstein to pass a “Private Bill” which would allow his family to stay in the country. Very few such bills are ever passed, but with all the media attention this story is getting, there’s a chance. Arthur has asked the major news organizations to publish his email address (artmkoyan [at] gmail [dot] com) so that he can forward letters of support to Mrs. Feinstein. I will write such a letter to him today, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

This story, which may soon become a tragedy, is an instance of the horribly broken immigration policy of the United States. For a rational view of immigration policy, read Rebecca Knapp’s excellent article on immigration from a 2006 issue of The Undercurrent.

–Dan Edge

**Update - According to one website, a Private Bill has been filed on behalf of the Mkoyan family and their deportation has been delayed. I could not confirm this news elsewhere.

In Rememberance of The Unknown Hero

2008-06-03T07:08:00.003-06:00

(Jeff Widener, Associated Press, June 5, 1989)

No one knows who this man is or what happened to him after this photo was taken. But nearly 19 years ago, he heroically stared down a line of Chinese tanks in defiance against tyranny. He was later branded 'The Unknown Rebel' by the media. I call him 'The Unknown Hero.' Hundreds of civilians, many of them students, died that day as Chinese soldiers opened fire on a group of protesters in Tiananmen Square. The students were protesting for free media reform (freedom of speech), one of the key components of a free society.

This image has always been evocative for me because it demonstrates the courage that free men must have to overcome violent irrationalism. I look at this picture often, for the same reason I look at news footage of the WTC attacks every year on September 11. I want to remind myself of the importance to fight against evil, in any form, wherever it rears its ugly head. The cost of inaction is dire.

And more, images like this one inspire me to live my life to the fullest. Heroism is not restricted to characters in stories. Anyone can be a hero in his own life. If this lone man has the courage to walk in front of a line of tanks, then I can certainly do my best every day to become a better man.

--Dan Edge

Wrapping Up the OAC, Year 2

2008-05-29T05:57:00.004-06:00

When I first looked at the syllabus for the Sophomore year at the Objectivist Academic Center, I thought "No sweat!" The source material for SARPO (Seminar on Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism) includes OPAR, ITOE, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Virtue of Selfishness, and a few others -- all books I've read at least twice, and in some cases many times. I already have a BA in Philosophy, and I've been studying Objectivism for twelve years. This Undergraduate course would be a cinch. "I won't even have to study," I thought.

Wrong!

SARPO was among the most challenging courses I've ever taken. Our instructor Onkar Ghate set the pace in the first class. He stressed that Ayn Rand did not arrive at her philosophy deductively. Objectivism was the result of massive inductions by a brilliant mind over the course of decades. He warned against taking a rationalistic approach and said that, in SARPO, we would be trying to emulate her approach in grasping Objectivism. This meant many examples, many questions, and many extensive discussions. Ghate would keep questioning us on each key point until we had fully grounded it to reality. Partial or halfway understanding was not sufficient.

Sometimes I would question why Ghate spent so much time on a certain point. I would opine, "I see what you're saying, Dr. Ghate, I just don't think it's that important. Why focus on X instead of Y?" On a few points, I openly disagreed with his approach, whether it was his use of certain terms (like "metaphysical" certainty, a concept I reject), the application of virtue (I argued that parenting is a productive activity), or whether it was possible to make the professor laugh out loud during class (I thought yes, but he proved a difficult target). He would patiently dissect his own reasoning for stressing particular principles and formulations. I wasn't always satisfied, and follow-up questions were always welcome. Sometimes I still didn't agree with him after a few rounds of back and forth. Ghate would continue the discussion until time constraints forced us to move on, but one was struck by the degree of respect with which he treated every question or objection. There are truly no stupid questions in Ghate's class. (Contrary to the myth propagated by some, no one is ever berated or chastised in class.)

SARPO challenged me to fully integrate each key principle of Objectivism. Thanks to this class, I have a much more thorough understand of the philosophy as an integrated system. I feel like my understanding has been taken to a whole new level. My own studies in Objectivism have taken me far, but there is simply no substitute for guided learning from someone who knows more about the subject matter. I'm a proud man, but I must admit that Ghate knows a little bit more about Objectivism than I do (at least for now -- give me a few more years).

It goes without saying that I highly recommend the OAC to anyone, at any level of study. But especially students. The writing classes from the first year alone will take you to another level of intellectual achievement. And if you survive till the end of year 2, you will have a fully grounded platform of knowledge from which to spring into any specialized field of study you choose. The instructors are professional and knowledgeable, the assistants are friendly and helpful, and your classmates will likely be the cream of the crop. From what I hear, the admissions requirements are getting more and more stringent each year, so you best get in now while the gettin's good. The application form can be found here. I would be happy to answer any questions about my experience from prospective students. Ask in the comments section of this post or email me at i.am.dan.edge(at)gmail.com

I will be taking a hiatus from the OAC next year to work on The Undercurrent student newspaper. But I will miss my classmates, I will miss Dr. Ghate, and I will miss being immersed in knowledge every Wednesday from 7 pm - 10 pm. Fortunately, I have developed friendships with several of my classmates who live in the New York area, so they can keep me current on the OAC front. But for now: so long, OAC! We'll see you again in the fall of 2009. I know you will miss me, but be strong. When next we meet, the Benevolent Universe will shine through sparks and flying dragons!

--Dan Edge

Good News For Gays

2008-05-15T13:44:00.002-06:00

The California Supreme Court has overturned the immoral ban on gay marriage in their state. Further, the Governator said he would not support an amendment to the state constitution that would overrule the Court's decision. With religious conservatism on this rise in American politics, this decision couldn't have come at a better time. The persecution of gays has become one of the litmus test issues for the religious right.

My wife Kelly and I are particularly pleased at this ruling because two of our best friends are a gay couple. It's a perverse moral injustice that two people who love one another be forbidden to marry. Hopefully, the California ruling is the first step in a trend toward legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

To Love!

--Dan Edge

Lebanese Governmnet Surrendering to Hezbollah

2008-05-09T09:33:00.002-06:00

According to CNN, the Lebanese government has effectively surrendered to Hezbollah militants. I do not exaggerate. Over the past few days, Hezbollah has initiated a military coup, moving to take over airports and pro-government television stations. The Lebanese army is not fighting back, their leaders say, because so many soldiers are pro-Hezbollah, and ordering them to attack would throw the army into disarray. Instead, political and military leaders have negotiated the surrender of western Beirut. Pro-government gunmen are being persuaded to lay down arms without a fight.

With Hezbollah in control of Lebanon, and with the backing of Iran and it's puppet, Syria, we can be sure that Lebanon will again become the primary staging point for attacks on Israel. If any positive slant can be taken on recent events, it is that Israel now clearly has the right to wage a full scale war against Lebanon and Syria. I seriously doubt that will happen, but as soon as attacks against Israeli civilians begin to mount, they will demand military action. Of course, militants will continue to use the Lebanese civilian population as cover, and Israel will be condemned the first time it destroys a Hezbollah rocket position that happens to be on top of a hospital.

If you want my opinion of what Israel needs to do to defend itself, read my article Israel Must Respond to Militant Islam With Overwhelming Force. This article was a response to Israel's military actions against Hezbollah following the kidnapping of IDF soldiers in 2006, but the same principle still applies: that a nation has the moral right to do anything it must to defend its citizens against an enemy aggressor. If only Israel (or better yet, America) heeded this advice, we would live in a much safer world.

--Dan Edge

The Teleology of Emotions

2008-04-30T07:31:00.002-06:00

During my most recent one-on-one Tutorial for OAC class (the subject of which was my last article), Dr. Ghate introduced a very interesting formulation about the function of emotions that I would like to share here. As far as I know (and he knows), the formulation is unique to him, so: the Kudos Delivery Man is making his way to your house, Onkar!

In my paper, I described the function of emotions this way: “They give one an automatic, instantaneous response to percept(s) or imagination, based on previously formed judgments that are stored in the subconscious.” Dr. Ghate did not object to this sentence, but he asked if I could describe the function of emotions from a philosophical, rather than a psychological, perspective. I am used to thinking about emotions from a psychological perspective, so I wasn’t sure what he was looking for. To help clue me in, Ghate said, “Think about it this way. What is the function of the subconscious?” (To be clear, for the purpose of this article, when I use the term “subconscious,” I am referring to the aspect of consciousness that stores and retrieves data in the form of concepts.) Now this question, I had an answer for. I devoted a paragraph to the teleology of the subconscious in my article on Mind-Body Integration. I reproduce it below:

“The teleology of the subconscious must now be considered. Man is able to deal with vast quantities of information because his subconscious provides him information related to whatever his mind is focused on at any particular time. If one's mind is well organized in a hierarchical fashion, then the subconscious will provide information stored close by within the hierarchy. Conceptual units may be interrelated and cross-classified in a variety of ways, and the subconscious aims to provide the focal awareness with related information. For instance, if one is thinking about snakes, his subconscious will send him units related to snakes, like reptile, or animal, or some memory of an encounter with a snake, or some emotion related to snakes (like fear), etc. The information provided depends both on the organization of one's mind and the context in which the idea arises in the focal awareness.”

I gave Dr. Ghate some approximation of this paragraph (including the snake example) during our conversation. Once again, my tack on the question was much more psychological than philosophical. With more prodding from Ghate, I was able to reduce it down to a more fundamental point: The function of the subconscious is to make one’s knowledge immediately available to him. Now how does this relate to emotions? Dr. Ghate finally gave me his answer.

The function of emotion is to make one’s values immediately available to him. This formulation sounds similar to the one I started with, but the comparison to the function of the subconscious opens up more avenues of thought.

The subconscious provides one with an instantaneous stream of data related to whatever he is focusing on. If one is having a discussion about nationalized healthcare, for instance, his subconscious may stand at the ready with data about economics and capitalism generally, the pharma industry in particular, and a variety of related concrete examples. During the discussion, a rational (non-insane) man’s mind would not respond with information about puppies, black holes, and the Illiad, because these things are not directly relevant. This has survival value, because the data stored in one’s subconscious can become vast over a lifetime. If one had to manually sort through every piece of knowledge he ever acquired for each new process of thought, he would be utterly paralyzed.

Because the functioning of the subconscious is automatic, it cannot do one’s thinking for him. While one is discussing nationalized healthcare, his mind will provide him with many different items of knowledge. But one must choose which ideas to focus on, how to organize them in his focal awareness, and how to present them in conversation. If one were to simply blurt out everything that his subconscious brought to mind, he would be unable to utter a complete thought. He would wander from subject to subject, never completing a sentence, never communicating anything effectively, neither to himself nor anyone else. (Those who have known me for a while may recognize this as an exact description of the 17-year-old Dan trying to explain Objectivism :)

Also, even a healthy mind may provide data that are seemingly relevant, but which do not in fact lead one in the right direction. In thinking about the ills of government-sponsored health insurance, one’s mind may wander to whether or not he paid his insurance premium this month. One must keep his mind focused in order to filter out data that is nonessential in any particular context. One has a crucial epistemological responsibility to separate his conscious and subconscious mind, and always to organize and evaluate the ideas that are automatically provided by the subconscious.

Emotions, too, have survival value because they reduce one’s values into an instantaneous response to whatever one is focusing on. Just as one’s knowledge becomes vast over time, so one’s evaluations become vast. If every is implies an ought, then there are as many (implicit) evaluations stored in one’s mind as there are items of knowledge. If one had to manually sort though every judgment he ever made, or could make, before choosing a course of action, he would be paralyzed.

But emotions are also automatic, and they cannot be used as a substitute for thinking. When discussing nationalized healthcare, one may experience a negative emotional response, clueing him in to the fact that it is evil. This emotional response is based on a variety of related evaluations: the value of health care, the value of free trade, and the disvalue of government intervention, to name a few. But one must use his focal awareness to determine which evaluations are relevant in the present context. One’s emotions may conflict with his conscious evaluations, in which case only reason can resolve the conflict.

Also, even a healthy mind may provide automatized evaluations that are seemingly relevant, but are in fact nonessential. For instance, imagine that a doctor is having the nationalized healthcare discussion with a new acquaintance whom he judges to be fundamentally rational, but who retains some bad ideas. And this acquaintance is defending nationalized healthcare partially as a devil’s advocate. The doctor, who is intimately familiar with the evil effects of socialized medicine, may experience an overwhelmingly negative emotional response. He may feel himself growing very angry. But he is angry at the idea and its consequences, not at this new acquaintance who is honestly trying to unravel the issue for himself. It would be wrong of the doctor to lash out at his potential new friend. Again, one must keep his mind focused in order to filter out data that is nonessential in any particular context.

I think this comparison of the subconscious to emotions is brilliant, and I want to thank Dr. Ghate for the formulation. I must add that, while I think that Ghate would agree with most of what I wrote here, he only presented the formulation in general terms. The examples and extrapolations are all mine.

The broader point, and the one which I wish to develop further in the future, is that the mental mechanism for the subconscious and for emotions is the same. I believe that the mind treats automatized concepts, memories, physical motions, evaluations, and emotions as interrelated units. One can follow the development of this theory by reading The Psycho-Epistemology of Acting, Mind-Body Integration, and The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality (especially part III.) I’ll get around to writing a book about it one of these days.

Thanks for reading,

--Dan Edge

The Rational Man's Approach to Emotions

2008-04-15T06:55:00.003-06:00

This assignment was written for my "SARPO" class at the Objectivist Academic Center, and is the property of the OAC. It does not necessarily represent the views of the OAC or the Ayn Rand Institute. I reproduce it here with permission.

-----------

Explain, by means of an example(s), the “crucial epistemological responsibility” [OPAR p.161] which follows from the fact that emotions are not a means of grasping reality. What is a rational individual’s approach to emotions and their role in his life? Explain in some detail.

-----------

Objectivism holds that reason is man's only means to knowledge, i.e., his only faculty for identifying reality. Emotions, by contrast, are not tools of cognition, but are a derivative response to automatized evaluations. In OPAR, Dr. Peikoff argues that one has a "crucial epistemological responsibility" to "grasp the distinction between reason and emotion." This short essay will discuss how a rational man ought to view the role of emotions in his life.

Emotions are one's psycho-somatic response to his automatized evaluations about the world around him. They give one an automatic, instantaneous response to percept(s) or imagination, based on previously formed judgments that are stored in the subconscious. For instance, one will be saddened by the news that an old friend has died. One does not have to think about all the good times he spent with his friend, or about the many virtues his friend possessed, or about the value one places on friendship as such. All of these judgments and memories are stored in the subconscious, and when one hears that his friend has died, sadness is the immediate, automatic response. On the other hand, one will experience joy when he perceives some aspect(s) of reality that he believes is good for him, like an admissions acceptance letter from his college of choice. In both cases, one's emotions are responding to something he perceives, as evaluated by automatized generalizations stored in his subconscious.

It is crucial to acknowledge that emotions -- as an automatic, derivative response to previously formed judgments -- do not provide direct evidence about reality. Emotional responses are not volitional. Without the use of reason, one has no means of determining whether his emotions are responding to valid or invalid evaluations. Emotions can never be used as a substitute for logical thinking.

The "epistemological responsibility" to maintain a proper distinction between reason and emotion is necessary because it is not always clear to what, precisely, one's emotions are responding. For instance, one could see a woman on the street and get a bad feeling about her, but be unable to identify the source of his emotion. Perhaps she resembles his mother, whom he secretly hates. Perhaps she reminds one of himself, whom he loathes. Perhaps she has the shifty manner of a thief. There could be any number of reasons why one may get a bad feeling from looking at someone, some rational and some irrational. The only way to tell the difference is to explicitly identify the source of one's subconscious evaluations -- and to evaluate them using his full focal awareness.

While emotions and reason are naturally in harmony, they can sometimes seem to be in conflict. Reason and emotions do not in fact conflict, they only seem to do so. It is ideas that conflict. There are no contradictions in reality, so if one's reason and his feelings appear to be in opposition, then either his conscious or subconscious evaluations are flawed, and he must use reason to resolve the conflict. For instance, one may feel anxiety as his young business grows. The cause for this may be that, on some level, he does not believe that he deserves success. On the other hand, perhaps he is anxious because, despite his current success, he is letting things lapse in the business (like proper accounting practices or quality control).

In the first example, the man's emotions are reacting to an irrational premise in his subconscious. There's nothing actually wrong with his business's success, but he feels as if it's a bad thing. He feels this way because of a false, unchecked idea stored in his mind: that he does not deserve success. If he focuses his mind on the source of his anxiety, he can (given time) discover this unchecked premise and work towards expelling it from his subconscious. But only reason can identify the source of the emotion and determine whether or not it is valid. The feeling itself provides no automatic guidance to evaluate its cause.

In the second example, the man's emotions are reacting to rational premises, and are warning him about dangers that he has failed explicitly to identify. Success in business cannot last if one allows his accounting practices and quality control to lapse. But in the excitement of the moment, one's failures in these areas could be overlooked. If he endeavors to discover the cause of his anxiety, he will find that his subconscious is giving him a reasonable kick in the butt. Again, the feeling itself provides no automatic guidance to evaluate its source -- only reason can provide such guidance.

If one experiences a reason/emotion conflict in an emergency situation, then he must act according to his best (reasoned) judgment in the moment, without full knowledge of the nature of the conflict, and then work to resolve it as soon as possible after the emergency is over. For example, a battered woman thinks that her life will be in danger if she stays with her husband. But she still loves him, and does not want to leave. If in her best judgment, she truly believes her husband is a threat, then she ought to leave and try to untangle her mixed emotions for him after the immediate danger is over.

In all these cases -- and in any case where reason and emotion seem to conflict -- the rational man uses reason as the final arbiter of truth, and the ultimate guide to his actions. He does this because reason is his only connection to reality. Emotions are automatic responses to previously formed generalizations, some of which may be mistaken, or left over from childhood, or simply forgotten about. Reason and emotion are naturally harmonious, but this harmony is only possible to the man who acknowledges reason as his only means of knowledge.

Reason/emotion conflicts are not always the result of vice. Their source can be perfectly innocent, like irrational premises left over from a bad childhood, or simply honest error. But it is not enough to acknowledge that the conflict should not exist. One must explicitly identify the source of the error and correct it. Sometimes there are a web of errors tangled up in one's subconscious, and deciphering them can take years. While one is working towards bringing his reason and emotions into harmony, he must keep in mind the continual need to make the implicit explicit.

For the rational man, there are no "bad" emotions. Emotions are neither good nor bad -- they are automatic, and cannot be evaluated as such. Of course, one can evaluate the ideas behind the emotions, but this does not mean that an emotion that responds to an irrational idea is "bad." This is an important distinction, because some people wrongly ignore what they judge to be "bad" emotions. For instance: after a young Objectivist has sex for the first time, he feels dirty without knowing why. But he knows that there is nothing wrong with sex. The young man believes that he isn't supposed to feel dirty after sex, so he simply ignores the emotion, and discards it as unimportant. This is a serious error, as it leaves the fundamental psychological conflict unresolved.

It must be stressed that Objectivism does not advocate emotional repression. The rational man does not ignore his emotions, he uses them as a guide to his own psychology. But this is not the same thing as using emotions as tools of cognition. Emotions have survival value because they provide an immediate awareness of one's automatized evaluations. Such information can be useful in helping one decide what he ought to focus on. Consider the example above about the man who feels anxiety when his business starts to succeed. This feeling of fear, whether rationally justified or not, gives one a clue that something is wrong here. Whether his feelings are responding to a fundamental lack of self-esteem or an actual problem with his business, one is prompted to look at the conflict and untangle its cause. If he strives to identify and fix the problems, whether they are problems with his psychology or his business, then either way he will have become a better man.

Only the rational man can experience a life rich in emotional depth. When one's subconscious is free of contradictions, then his emotions are undiluted by conflicts. All of his values, explicit and implicit, are in unison. A deep, intense feeling of happiness is the rational man's reward for a life well-lived.

--Dan Edge

I Am a Monkey

2008-03-27T08:17:00.002-05:00

What cute animal are you? Click on the link below to find out...

You Are A: Monkey!

Monkeys are intelligent and agile, well-adapted for jungle life as they swing happily from tree to tree. As a monkey, you are a social animal who eats a wide range of food, is quick to learn new things and loves to climb. A monkey's tiny primate features are irresistable, as is his gregarious personality!

You were almost a: Puppy or a Parakeet
You are least like a: Chipmunk or a Turtle Discover What Cute Animal You Are!

Opposite-Sex Friendships

2008-03-26T08:10:00.004-05:00

I have an unwritten policy about opposite-sex friendships. This issue came up recently in a discussion with friends, and it got me to thinking about why I conduct my friendships the way that I do.

My general policy is this: When I am in a committed relationship with a woman, I avoid developing intimate friendships with other women. When Kelly and I hang out with another couple, I do make friends with the woman in that couple. But in general I don't develop an intimate friendship with the woman independent of Kelly, or independent of the other woman's man. On the other hand, I am very willing to develop an independent, intimate friendship with the man in the couple. I'd have no problem inviting just the guy to a sports bar to watch football, but I wouldn't do the same with his girlfriend.

Some could (and have) argued that this policy is sexist. After all, a woman can be every bit as good a friend as a man. Continuing the couples example above: If both couples are in a committed, happy relationship, then why would there be any reason to hold back on developing friendships? After all, if I am fully dedicated to Kelly, there's no reason for either one of us to be jealous -- I'm not romantically interested in any other woman besides her. Neither one of us would ever cheat. So, acknowledging that I could have an enriching, totally platonic relationship with another woman, why would I avoid it?

My answer to this question is grounded in two key points: 1) Emotions respond to how one acts in a relationship, not how he labels the relationship, and 2) There can be more than one soulmate for any given person.

1) Most everyone has heard of situations like this: A man meets a girl he really likes, and she feels the same way. They start hanging out a lot, and the relationship quickly becomes intimate, both physically and emotionally. They decide to be exclusive. There's only one problem -- The woman says that she doesn't want to be his "girlfriend," she just wants to be friends without the pressure of that label. Why, she asks, can't they just be very intimate, sexually exclusive friends-with-benefits? He is confused, but reluctantly agrees. When he finally confesses his deep love for her, she is surprised and uncomfortable.

Or: A man and woman who were romantically involved decide to end their relationship due to incompatibility. They both still care about each other very much, but one or both acknowledges that it's not going to work out for the long term. So they decide to be just friends. But starting the day after the break-up, they still hang out with each other every day. Even though they no longer have sex, and even though both have decided that the relationship is over, both continue to harbor romantic and sexual feelings for one another. When one of them finally decides to start dating someone else, the other is surprised at how badly it hurts.

Or: A couple is having a lot of problems, but the man insists that he wants them to stay together. Though he is rude to her, never shows her affection, never buys her flowers any more, and never initiates sex -- he insists that he still loves her and wants them to remain a couple. She is confused because her man's words and actions seem to contradict. Eventually, one or both of them are tempted to look outside the relationship to fulfill their romantic needs.

A common thread in each of these examples is that the label placed on the relationship does not match the actions of those in the relationship. In the first example, the woman wants to be "just friends," but in every practical sense, they are acting like they are in an exclusive, romantic relationship. They are acting like boyfriend and girlfriend, but they don't want to acknowledge that the label applies. Even though the man may agree to withholding the label, and consciously believes that his decision is rational, his emotions disagree with him. Though he tells himself not to fall in love, that it is just a friendship, he falls hard anyway.

The not-quite-broken-up couple also have a label/action dichotomy in their relationship. Both consciously acknowledge that the relationship is over, and that they made the right decision in breaking up, but they are still acting like they are in a romance. Even though they stop having sex, in every other respect their relationship is as intimate as it was when their love was in full bloom. So both remain romantically and emotionally invested. Their emotions respond to their actions, not to the "friendship" label they have loosely pasted on.

In the last example, both the man and woman want to label their relationship a "committed romance," but the man is not treating her like his lover. He's treating her more like an annoying roommate. As a consequence, their love is dying, even though both may honestly want to stay together. Again, their emotions respond to the way they act in the relationship, not their conscious intentions.

2) This is a shorter point, but equally important: I do believe in soulmates, but I think that there is more than one potential soulmate out there for me. Though I hate to even consider the thought -- if Kelly died tomorrow, I believe I could find someone else and live a happy life. There are very few such women out there for me, but they do exist. Saying this takes nothing away from my love for Kelly. I simply acknowledge that there are many exceptional woman out there, and that I could be compatible with at least a few of them.

Kelly and I tend to make friends with people who are compatible with us in a variety of ways. Most of our friends are attractive, fit, intelligent, active, humorous, and fun. And most of them are also Objectivists. What this means is that several of our female friends are the kind of women I would be seeking if I were single, and similarly, some of our male friends are Kelly's type. One of these friends could be a potential soulmate for me. This does not mean that either of us are open to finding someone else. We are perfect for each other, we have a history together, and we have decided to get married and have a family together. Those choices mean everything.

However, consider what might happen if I started hanging out with Kelly's attractive, fun, intelligent friend Kate (a made-up person) on a regular basis. Kate and I develop a friendship independent of Kelly. As time goes on, the friendship becomes more intimate, and we share all of our deepest thoughts and dreams, as one would with any close friend. Neither of us are at all interested in a romance. But the fact is, we are acting as if we were feeling each other out for a potential romance. Think about it -- if you are single and you meet a woman you like, how do you test the waters to see if the relationship can go further? You begin to hang out with the woman independently, on a regular basis, and get to know her more intimately. It's possible that Kate and I could begin to develop romantic feelings for each other, even though it is not our intention.

Emotions are an automatized response to value judgments stored in the subconscious. Love is the emotional response to the integration of many values in another person, along with the reciprocated recognition of those values in oneself. If you throw in frequent intimate (even non-physical) contact -- and mutual physical attraction -- then romantic feelings are often the result. While one's conscious decisions about how he labels a relationship are taken into account by his subconscious, the way he acts in that relationship is also registered. The emotional result can be a confusing mixture, but most often one's actions are weighed more heavily than his conscious labels, especially if they are in stark opposition.

I don't develop independent, exclusive friendships with other women because I am dedicated to Kelly, and I would not want to inadvertently develop romantic feelings for another woman. Even though I would never act on those feelings, I don't want to take any focus off of the woman I love. I choose to funnel 100% of my romantic and sexual energy into one person, into one relationship. I choose to do this because I believe that this kind of monogamous, long-term romance is the greatest possible adventure in life (see my articles on The Morality of Monogamy and The Psycho-Epistemology of Sexuality for more details).

While I stand by the generalizations I have outlined above, I want to stress that I do not treat my opposite-sex friendship policy as a set of Commandments. Commandments are for religion, not for a rational mind. The ideas I have outlined must be considered within a context, and applied contextually to any particular situation. Think of it like a healthy diet. A man can have a healthy diet and eat hot dogs or pizza every now and then. Maybe his body burns up calories very fast and he has more flexibility about what he can eat without gaining unhealthy weight. Or maybe his metabolism is very slow, and he must be more watchful of his diet than others.

My point is that, while I think it's a good tendency not to develop intimate, independent friendships with members of the opposite sex, that doesn't mean that one must draw a line the sand and never deviate from it. For example, I retain close friendships with several of my ex-girlfriends, and I still keep in touch with them on a regular basis. All the women I have loved in my life are very special, else I wouldn't have dated them in the first place (see my article "Demoting" a Relationship). Kelly knows about them, but she isn't close friends with any of them. I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by staying in touch with these women, and I've never had a problem with developing romantic feelings for them.

However, my friendships with these girls are all long-distance. We chat on the phone once every few weeks, and our discussions are very intimate (in the non-sexual sense), but that is the limit of it. If one of them moved to the area, I would probably invite her to have dinner with me and Kelly, and even go out with her alone for coffee every now and then. But I would be much more careful about how much time I spent with her.

There are many different kind of friendships -- everyone is different -- but keeping in mind some rational generalizations about conducting opposite-sex friendships can help one avoid confusion and focus on the one that matters most.

--Dan Edge

Objectivist Carnival!

2008-03-21T08:22:00.003-05:00

Welcome to the March 20, 2008 edition of Objectivist Round Up. Big thanks to Rational Jenn for helping me host the carnival this time around.

Deb Ross presents Clean, crisp capitalism for the homeschooler posted at Mariposario

Rational Jenn presents Heroic Me posted at Rational Jenn, saying, "After nearly 3 months of writing about our experience with the American Community Survey, I finally had the chance to put my money where my mouth was, so to speak, when a representative from the Census Bureau showed up at our house and reminded us that participation is "mandatory." We refused--and I discovered anew what a great experience it is, doing the right thing."

T Ellis presents The Meaning of Life? - It's Right Here! posted at evanescent, saying, "Why do so many lack purpose and direction in life? I think I know why! What is the answer? An objective philosophy and a proper code of ethics. Only if you believe your life is an end in itself can you ultimately find meaning and purpose in life. Otherwise you are
just waiting for others to give it for you."

John Drake presents My understanding of Kelley's error posted at Try Reason!, saying, "In this post, I summarize some of my intellectual journal to understanding David Kelley's error in moral judgments. Surprisingly, the catalyst for this understanding came from the class I'm teaching, Systems Analysis and Design."

Ari Armstrong presents Legal Prostitution: Article in Rocky Mountain News posted at FreeColorado.com, saying, "In an article published by the Rocky Mountain News and in additional comments on the blog, I argue that prostitution, while a moral vice, should be legal.

Monica presents Just Say No to Real ID posted at Spark A Synapse, saying, "Some months ago, I was introduced to the notion of Real ID by RationalJenn. I've since become pretty interested and passionate about my opposition to Real ID and all the ways it could be used to further erode our liberties. This post is not about what Real ID is. If you don't know about, you should! You can search both of our blogs for "Real ID" for a whole lot more information. Rather, my post is about Real ID opposition activism. Once Real ID happens, there will be turning back. I have many links explaining what Real ID is (though I don't do it expressly in this post), and what you, practically, can legally do about it besides simply spreading the word to others."

Myrhaf presents Obama's Speech posted at Myrhaf.

Edward Cline presents Congressional Duplicity, or Treason? posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "Congress is proposing, in Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act (S.2433, based on H.R. 1302, passed by the House September 25, 2007), that Americans be delivered into a state of indentured servitude as laborers for the United Nations."

Darren Cauthon presents RIAA Piracy Tax? posted at Darren Cauthon.

Craig Ceely presents Worse Before It Gets Better -- Especially With Help posted at The Anger of Compassion, saying, "Is President Bush on top of the widening financial crises in America? If so: "Be afraid. Be very afraid.""

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of objectivist round up using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags:

objectivist round up, blog carnival.

A Passion for Dance! - Reprise

2008-03-12T11:19:00.002-05:00

Kelly and I are learning how to Lindy Hop together this week, and I'm too busy to write a proper blog entry, so I thought I'd dig out this old post about my passion for dancing. Enjoy!
-----------------
I began my love affair with dancing in middle school, and our relationship has grown stronger with each passing year. It started at a YMCA summer camp high in the Applalachains. I didn't know any of the other kids aside from camp, so I was less worried what they thought about me. I would flail my arms about wildly to the rhythm; hop, skip and jump across the floor; or grab a girl by the arm and spin her around till we both fell down dizzy. Some kids would make fun of me, but I think they were just jealous. I was having more fun than anyone else!

My puppy love for dance turned into a full blown love affair my sophomore year in high school, when I went to my first techno dance party, or "rave." I spent hours just walking around and watching people dance. There were incredibly athletic breakdancers, hip hop dancers, even ballet dancers. Everyone had his own style, but each style was dictated by the rhythm and the variations in the music. It was beautiful, spontaneously ordered chaos. Over the years, I went to lots of raves and late night clubs, each time developing my own signature style of dance more acutely. I became quite good, and was proud of the crowds I would attract to watch me. Any feelings of anxiety about others watching me completely disappeared. To this day, I'm usually the first person on the dance floor at a club, and oftentimes the last to leave.

In college, I started trying different kinds of clubs and learning different styles of dance. The majority of clubs in college towns are hip hop / top 40's clubs, so that seemed like a good place to start. Hip hop can be very difficult when you start out with techno. Techno is all about coordinating your limbs to move in straight lines or curves with respect to one another. Your arms, legs, and head are active, but usually your hips stay in the same place. Hip hop is just the opposite; your hips are the source of the beat and the music. Once you learn the style, though, it can be very sexy and sensual. Hip hop introduced me to couples dancing, which is uncommon in techno clubs. Having no prior experience with couples dancing, it took me a while to learn to improvise on the spot with women I'd never met before. Learning to couples dance seemed the next natural step (no pun intended).

Ballroom dancing came very quickly to me, and I fell in love all over again. Once you know the basic steps and a few moves, you can make up whatever you want. Learning the different ballroom styles opens up a whole new world of specialty-type clubs that can fill a lifetime. If you've never been, I *highly* recommend visiting a ballroom club or Swing club that offers a free lesson before they open up the dance floor. Try your best to participate, and look around at the experienced dancers. Each with his own style, each a spontaneous work of art in motion, each having the time of his life! I'm still in the beginning stages of learning ballroom (I should probably take an actual lesson or three). I'm fortunate enough to have the lovely and matchless Kelly Meg available to teach me Swing. She's really *really* good! And we'll tackle the other styles together.

Learning to dance is fun in and of itself, but it has positive effects on many other aspects of your life. It helps you feel more comfortable with your body, more natural in your own skin. This effects the way you walk and communicate non-verbally, especially with those of the opposite sex. Dance gives you a better psycho-epistemological understanding of your sexuality. Not only do you have better non-verbal communication, you can recognize it more easily in others. An acute awareness of your own body is a powerful potential source of psychological visibility and romantic pleasure. Another romantic goodie: ballroom-type dance clubs are a great place to meet women/men! Very few complete morons frequent such places. But I digress!

If you don't dance, especially if it makes you uncomfortable, you own it to yourself to give it a shot. You might fall in love like I did. Don't worry, I won't get too jealous.

--Dan Edge

Bachelor Party!

2008-03-04T11:41:00.007-05:00

I had my Bachelor Party this past Saturday, and it was a blast. Special thanks to Bob, Todd, Chad, Cory, Miguel, and German for showing me such a good time.

We went to Chelsea Piers, which is an enormous sports complex in Manhattan, for an afternoon of dude-like activities. We played golf, went bowling, ate burgers and nachos, punished a punching bag, whiffed some balls at the batting cages, rode a Harley (see below), and started planning a Revolution at a local tavern. Testosterone-pumping action, through and through!

Kelly also had her Bachelorette Party on Saturday, and then we both attended a lovely Wedding Shower orchestrated by her mother on Sunday at the Whistling Swan Inn. Pictures from both of those events are forthcoming. But for now, enjoy these pics:

Dan golfing (badly):

Dan and Chad (Thanks for the pics Chad!):

Dan and Bob:

Dan Rocks the Harley:

Dan is a little scared of the Harley after Rocking too much:

--Dan Edge

The Undercurrent Blog is Online!

2008-02-20T08:17:00.002-05:00

The Undercurrent blog is now going full steam. There have been three excellent posts in the past week and a half.

The first was my article about the Super Bowl, and why it is so popular in America. Next, The Undercurrent editorial staff published an article on the silly Saudis outlawing the color red for Valentine's day. Finally, Eric Brunner just posted an article on the inane beliefs of some religious people. Eric notes that some people are crazy enough to believe in "a Jewish zombie who can walk on water." :D

So check out The Undercurrent blog! Comments on the blogs are welcome, and are an excellent form of spiritual support. Also, if you are interested in writing for The Undercurrent (or helping out in some other capacity), you can reach the staff at contact@the-undercurrent.com.

--Dan Edge

The Super Bowl -- "Giants" Among Men

2008-02-11T08:09:00.000-05:00

This article was published on The Undercurrent student newspaper blog. I encourage readers to navigate to The Undercurrent website and check out the other excellent articles.
-----------------

Almost everyone loves the Super Bowl. Super Bowl Sunday has been an unofficial holiday in the United States for decades, and the Monday following the Super Bowl is the one day of the year employees are most likely to call in sick. On the list of the top 30 most watched television broadcasts of all time, 16 are Super Bowls. What is it about sporting events in general, and the Super Bowl in particular, that captures the heart of so many Americans?

The love of competitive sports has been around in the Western world for milennia. The first Olympics in Ancient Greece was held in 776 B.C. For over 1000 years (until Dark Age Christian rulers outlawed the event), the Olympics captivated tens of thousands in the City-States of Greece every four years — it was their Super Bowl. The Greeks revered the Olympic competitors as shining examples of man’s physical potential. Athletes competed in the nude because the spectators found their muscular figures to be beautiful and heroic. They were giants among men, as close to the gods as humans could come.

I believe that this same spirit — this reverence of man’s potential — is part of what makes the Super Bowl so infectious. The Wide Receivers and Defensive Backs are some of the fastest sprinters alive; the Quarterbacks have to be amazing all-around athletes; and the Linemen are literally giants, even when compared to the other players. Each position requires its own combination of strength, speed, agility, and intelligence. Consequently, the men on the field during the Super Bowl are some of fastest and strongest men on the planet.

The reverence for man’s potential is especially relevant in America, a nation founded on individualism. The Founding Fathers believed that man could only reach his full potential if left free to pursue his dreams. The result: even an immigrant with no education — an “underdog” — can come to America and make a fortune.

Sporting events like the Super Bowl inspire us because they symbolize the pursuit of human excellence. In showing us the great potential of the human body, these spectacles represent the even greater potential of the human spirit. As these giants among men take the field to display their physical skill, they inspire others to charge into life with all the vigor of a professional athlete.

--Dan Edge

Open Letter to Google VP David Drummond

2008-02-05T12:14:00.000-05:00

In Response to Mr. Drummond's Public Statement about Microsoft's Yahoo! bid

Mr. Drummond,

Your blog post of 2/3/08 regarding Microsoft's bid for Yahoo! is a cowardly statement undeserving of a great organization like Google. Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google are all successful companies that have thrived because we live in a society that still values free market capitalism. For you to state that Microsoft's actions imply "illegal" and "unfair" intentions is beyond the pale. Microsoft is a business which competes with other businesses to generate a profit.

Your letter makes clear that Google's leadership is afraid of fair (unregulated) competition with Microsoft. Instead, you would encourage the government to force Microsoft out of the search engine market. And this in the name of "openness and innovation." What a cowardly act! In your letter, you are more or less openly advocating government intervention to prevent a strong competitor from entering your market, and you do this in the name of "openness and innovation"? I have to call BULLSHIT on that, Drummond.

Google may be an excellent company now, but with leadership like this, it will never succeed in the long term. If Google's answer to competition is to cry "Monopoly!", fall to its knees, and beg for government intervention, then its history of innovation will rapidly become a legacy of incompetent and cowardly corporate leadership.

--Dan Edge

Meta-communication

2008-02-05T08:28:00.000-05:00

According to Wikipedia, Meta-communication is "communicating about communication." This is a valid concept, albeit perverted by modern linguistic theorists. Meta-communication is an indispensable tool for developing one's interpersonal relationships. It is important because people communicate on different levels, and one may not be aware of all the messages he is sending. The actual content of what one says is the obvious form of communication, but there are others: the context in which one says something, the tone and volume of his voice, the look in his eyes, and other body language, to name a few. Meta-communication can help one ensure that his messages are consistent. It can also help him better understand the messages sent by others.

To illustrate the idea of multiples levels of communication: imagine that, in response to a proposed resolution to a problem, one's lover says, "that's fine." If one considers this response based solely on content, then he will think that his lover his happy with the proposed resolution. But what if the words are said at three times normal speaking volume, interrupting what one is saying, and delivered with a dirty look and a grimace? The message is clearly different. This sort of thing happens all the time.

In the above example, the lover is probably intentionally sending the message that "things are not fine." This is not always the case. One may be intending to send the message that "things are fine," but is unintentionally sending contradictory messages. For instance, using the same example, assume that one's lover is truly amenable to resolving the conflict. She says things are OK, and means it, but the words are still delivered with laser eyes and in a sharp tone. Though she does not intend it, she is communicating that things are both "fine" and "not-fine" at the same time.

When this sort of miscommunication occurs, people often respond to the message opposite of the one intended. If someone is communicating that things are both "OK" and "not-OK", then the net message is that a problem still exists. Couples can continue fighting, ad infinitum, without ever identifying the source of the miscommunication. That's where meta-communication comes in.

If one is confused about contradictory messages sent by his lover, the proper response is not to acknowledge one of those messages and ignore the other. One should ask his lover, "What are you trying to communicate?" (This question is so obvious and so helpful, I have no idea why people fail to use it regularly!) If she responds by identifying her intended message, then one has achieved two victories: 1) he understands what she was actually trying to communicate, and 2) he has identified a possible source of miscommunication, which he can then discuss with her. One can say something like, "when you communicate with me in this way, this is the message I get from you." In this way, two people can hammer out their immediate differences, and also learn to improve the way they communicate with each other in the future.

Meta-communication across the life of a relationship is an inductive process. Lovers must consistently maintain an awareness of how they send messages to one another, always looking out for ways to improve. There is no Form of Communication which one can use to translate his messages into the ideal format. There are many optional value judgments regarding the way two people communicate with each other. A distinctive form of communication can become a beautiful part of one's private world with his lover. But this only happens if one puts effort into communicating about communication.

--Dan Edge

The Hazzards of Sports Betting

2008-01-20T21:22:00.000-05:00

A gentleman who read my recent post about Joe "Daddy" Stevenson emailed me that I was foolish to pick Joe against the highly touted BJ Penn. I thought that Joe's excellent conditioning and strong ground game would give him an edge. This reader bet me that Penn would win the fight. He advised me to take the Vegas odds, which were heavily in Penn's favor. I declined that offer, and instead bet that Joe would win the fight straight up. Clearly, this reader knows more about MMA than I do, because poor Joe got crushed by BJ Penn last night. So, without further ado, I will here make good on my part of the bet:

*clears throat*

------------
I would just like everyone to know that I suck. And that I'm a girl. And I like ribbons in my hair, and I want to kiss all the boys.
-------------

(If you've ever seen the online TV series Red vs Blue, then the preceding will make a lot more sense.)

Beware! Sports betting can be dangerous.

--Dan Edge

Lights Out!

2008-01-11T11:26:00.000-05:00

Since first hearing about the Energy Bill provision outlawing incandescent light bulbs by 2014, I have seen an explosion of grumbling on the web about the proposed replacement to the traditional light bulb, the CFB (Compact Fluorescent Bulb). People are complaining that the quality of light is inadequate, that the mercury inside CFBs poses serious health risks if they break, that they can cause migraines or even seizures in some people, that they don't work well with dimmers or three-way lights, etc. While I agree with this assessment of fluorescent light bulbs, I don't see the philosophical justification for all this whining.

If we as a nation have sanctioned the altruistic ideology prosthelytized by Greenpeace, Earth First, Al Gore, and the rest of the Greeninites, then we have nothing to complain about. Is one man's personal pleasure at all relevant to ethics or politics? Environmentalists, the church, and altruists around the globe say "No." By what standard can you complain about your own selfish convenience? You have an altruistic duty to serve society, and our Big Brother has determined that CFBs are best for the greater good. One man's quality of life is nothing compared to the good of society, or the good of the earth.

We should be grateful that we have this opportunity to exercise our moral agency -- that we have the opportunity to sacrifice. Isn't sacrifice the standard of morality? Consider: what would Jesus do in this situation? Assuming he would lower himself to such earthly pleasures as housing and artificial lighting, we can be certain that he wouldn't lament the necessity to sacrifice his quality of life for the good of the whole. He would embrace such a sacrifice.

If people thought that fluorescent bulbs were truly superior to incandescent lighting in most respects, then it wouldn't be a sacrifice to make the switch . Nor would the government have to mandate such a change. If left to their own devices, the free market would choose whichever form of lighting they thought best for their self-interest. It's a good thing we have the State to decide what is in the best interest of society, and then to impose that choice on everyone else. Otherwise, some individuals might refuse to sacrifice their judgment and personal interests to the greater good.

My advice to those now complaining about the enforced change to CFBs: go read the bible, or any major newspaper opinion page, or the political platform of any major candidate in this year's election. If you can discern any semblance of a philosophy from these sources, you will find that -- by far -- the dominant ideological trend in our culture is the worship of sacrifice: to the church, to society, and to Mother Earth. If you sanction this cultural trend, if you are a part of it, then I say: stop your whining! Be a good Little Brother, do your duty, screw in your shitty light bulb, and shut the fuck up.

And next time, be careful what you wish for...

--Dan Edge

Penn vs Stevenson - "Keys to the Fight"

2008-01-08T09:31:00.000-05:00

The UFC website posted a "keys to the fight" analysis yesterday on the upcoming Lightweight championship bout between BJ Penn and Joe Stevenson here.

From that article: "...Penn is so talented that the outcome of a fight rarely depends on what his opponent does in the ring. He doesn’t need to key off any one Stevenson weakness. He doesn’t need to worry about avoiding any particular Stevenson strength."

Considering Joe's Lightweight record and his dominant performances in the UFC, I'm surprised that the UFC website writers consider Penn to be such a heavy favorite. I mean, Penn "doesn’t need to worry about ... Stevenson['s] strength[s]"?

If Penn is as intelligent a fighter as he seems, I'm sure he is not taking this perspective. One can be sure that Penn is busy in the gym working on a game plan with his trainers to deal with Joe's considerable strengths, and exploit his relative weaknesses. If Penn takes the attitude that he can just come in and impose his will, without taking Joe's heavy hands and grappling skills into account, then we're in for a very short fight.

Fortunately for fight fans, I seriously doubt that Penn is taking Joe lightly -- which means that we're in for an exciting bout that could go the distance.

I hesitate to make a prediction since I'm such a big Joe "Daddy" fan, but I'll do it anyway. If Penn pushes the pace early and spends most of the first two rounds on top of Joe, then I'd have to give the advantage to Penn. But if Penn is unable to maintain a dominant position for the first two and a half rounds, I don't think he will have what it takes to go the distance with Joe.

My upset prediction: Joe "Daddy" Stevenson wins by unanimous decision after five rounds of exciting MMA action.

--Dan Edge

Huckabee's Evangelical Bodyguard -- The Real "Chuck Norris Facts"

2008-01-04T07:42:00.000-05:00

Most internet users have heard at least a few of the satirical Chuck Norris Facts that have been circulating on the web for the past year. Like: "When the Incredible Hulk gets mad, he turns into Chuck Norris," or: "Before the Bogeyman goes to bed, he checks his closet for Chuck Norris." These Facts became so widespread that Norris's popularity rose significantly, and he was asked about it often during interviews. He seemed to have a good sense of humor about the whole thing, and read off a few of his favorite Facts on the Tony Danza Show. He wrote that the phenomenon was mostly "just promoting harmless fun," and that "maybe these one liners will prompt some one to seek out the real facts about [him] and the beliefs that have shaped [his] life."

Many of the Facts I found to be hilarious, but I didn't "seek out the real facts" about Chuck Norris when I first heard about it. He was so cool about the whole thing, I thought he must be a decent guy -- someone whose books and movies I might buy.

Ian Spector, the college Freshman who started the original Chuck Norris Facts website, published a book of the Facts late last year. In the introduction, he wrote about how he had actually met Chuck Norris, Norris's wife, and their lawyer after the website got popular. At first, Spector was terrified that Norris would deliver him a roundhouse kick to the face. But Norris was very friendly and seemed to appreciate all the attention from the Chuck Norris Facts phenomenon. Spector was confident enough after that meeting to allow Penguin to publish a collection of the Facts.

Norris is now suing Spector and Penguin.

I have no idea of the merits of his case against Spector; for all I know, Norris's lawsuit could be valid or entirely frivolous. But I am thankful that he sued because otherwise I might not have done any research on Norris, to discover the true "beliefs that have shaped his life."

Chuck Norris is an evangelical Christian and political activist. He publishes a blog on World Net Daily, a leading conservative Christian news website. He has developed a new career writing Christian fiction novels for young people. He doesn't believe in evolution. He is on the National Council of Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which is fighting to have Bible classes in public schools across America. On his blog, he touts a new Censorship Bill (formally named the Protecting Children From Indecent Programming Act), which is up for vote in the senate. Norris is a fundamentalist, "born again", bible thumping Theocrat. And he is aggressively campaigning for Mike Huckabee for President.

On his blog, Norris explains that, after "praying about who could lead this country as our next president," he divined that Huckabee was the best choice. Why? Here's a few of the reasons cited:

- Huckabee is an ordained minister.
- He will "stand up for a Creator and against Secularist beliefs" in government.
- He initiated a government-sponsored health insurance program in Arkansas.
- He wants to reform the public education program... again. (I wonder if Biblical teachings will be part of that "reform?" I'm sure Chuck Norris is praying for that.)
- He supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
- He supports a Federal ban on abortion.

Huckabee is officially "Chuck Norris Approved." For the past few weeks, Norris and his wife have been on the campaign trail with Huckabee in Iowa. Norris and Huckabee actually use some of the Chuck Norris Facts in a YouTube campaign ad. Not surprisingly, when Huckabee gave his speech after winning the Iowa primary last night, his evangelical bodyguard Chuck Norris was right behind him.

I do have to thank Chuck Norris for one thing: he has helped me see that Mike Huckabee is the very last person I would want in charge of this country. If Mike Huckabee earns the nomination for the Republican party, I will vote for whoever is running against him. Also, I know now not to make the mistake of buying any of Norris's books or videos, ever. Any dime given to Norris is money in the pockets of the fundamentalist, evangelical, Christian Behemoth that has swallowed the Republican party whole.

So, why does the Bogeyman check his closet for Chuck Norris before he goes to bed? Because he's afraid of those goddamn Fundamentalist Christians! Me too.

--Dan Edge

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

2007-12-27T11:19:00.000-05:00

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was murdered this morning at a political campaign rally. She was shot in the neck by an assassin while a suicide bomber (possibly the same person?) blew himself up to claim 20 more casualties.

I don’t know much about Mrs. Bhutto, but I do know that she was the loudest voice in Pakistan opposing Musharraf’s dictatorial military rule. The crazy thing about this is that, while there is no evidence implicating Musharraf’s government in the attack, it’s quite possible that the assassination was carried out under his direct orders. That alone tells you what kind of people are our “strong allies.” Musharraf is the Saddam Hussein of Southeast Asia. Not that I advocate his overthrow -- just a recognition of the quality of man we are dealing with over there.

If Musharraf declares martial law to combat the eruption of protests that follow the assassination, then we’ll know he probably had a part in it. How clever to murder the leader of the opposition, then use the resulting public outcry as an excuse to seize more control.

What a sad, sad country Pakistan is. And how sad it is that they are our ally.

--Dan Edge

Dan Sick :(

2007-12-19T11:00:00.000-05:00

Greetings All,

I must interrupt your regularly scheduled blog post to deal with this:

Something similar to the entity in the image above has infiltrated my body, multiplied, and transformed me into a sniffly, sneezy, achy ball of discomfort. Your regularly scheduled blog post will return next week.

Merry Christmas!

--Dan Edge

Edge Fun and Games

2007-12-11T11:40:00.000-05:00

www.edgefunandgames.com

Edge Fun and Games is a small business based out of Pomona, NY. The owner is a fan of the Harry Potter series, and is happy to offer the best Harry Potter toys on the market. The quality of NECA toys is second to none. We look forward to offering a wider variety of NECA toys as our business grows.

Please check out the website, and order early while we still have “Harry Potter” himself in stock! This is a great gift for kids and those who are (like me) young at heart. Mention this letter, and get $3 off on the “Harry Potter” action figure with the purchase of any other toy (this includes multiples of “Harry Potter”). You must call or email to take advantage of this offer.

Feel free to call or email with any other questions.

--------------

Dan Edge

President

Edge Fun and Games

845-694-8337 office

845-558-9328 cell

dedge@edgefunandgames.com