McCain: Invent, Or Else
One of the things I hate most about discussions on today’s “energy crisis” is how so many people take inventions and men’s ideas for granted. For example, when the issue of today’s gas prices comes up, it won’t be long until someone says that “we” need to think of a better energy alternatives. Everybody has an opinion of what those alternatives *should* be — wind, solar, ethanol, etc — but that’s about as far as their thinking will go. When it comes to researching and implementing their ideas, they pass. Leave that for the guys who know more, right? All they know is, the idea is good, it hasn’t been put in place yet, so something’s wrong. And for some, the solution is for someone (like the government) is to just make the good idea finally happen.
While driving from home tonight, I heard one of the worst examples of this on the radio. And no surprise, it was from John McCain. Today he gave a speech detailing how he thinks we can get through this crisis. His solution: Make the smart people figure it out! According to McCain:
Higher end auto companies like BMW, Porsche, and Mercedes employ some of the best engineering talent in the world. But that talent isn’t put to the job of fuel efficiency, when the penalties are too small to encourage innovation.
Here he’s pushing the idea that we have a lot of smart people who could solve our energy problems… if they were just put on that task. They’re not, though, so McCain continued:
But I am confident they can do more, and do it faster, in the interest of our energy security. And if I am elected president, they will. Whether it takes a meeting with automakers during my first month in office, or my signature on an act of Congress, we will meet the goal of a swift conversion of American vehicles away from oil.
In other words, the smart people could solve our problems but they’re not, so I’m going to make them do it.
The problem with this isn’t just that McCain wants to use government force to make people behave a certain way, which is already bad enough. He also thinks that “we,” as people that happen to live in the same country as so many inventors, somehow played a part in those inventions. And by taking action against the people that make the things that we need and enjoy, “we” will solve our problems. To reinforce this idea, he later says (emphasis mine):
Think of all the highest scientific endeavors of our age — the invention of the silicon chip, the creation of the Internet, the mapping of the human genome. In so many cases, you can draw a straight line back to American inventors, and often to the foresighted aid of the United States government.
So according to McCain, the inventions he mentions was not just a product of the inventor; they were also a product of us either providing aid or “incentive” (like a signature on an act from Congress) for their work. Want more inventions? Vote McCain, 2008!
Politicians don’t produce anything, individuals do. An individual thinks of the idea, an individual chooses to act on that idea, and the an individual does the work to make the product. If we want to foster that process, the best thing we can do is stay out of their way. And to take it one step further, if we want to be free to live our own lives we must respect those inventors by staying out of their rights. And to take it even one more step further, if we really admire inventors and producers for what they offer, we won’t feel resentment toward them.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people really don’t admire or respect the people that bring about the things we enjoy. They want the results of their work, but they don’t think they should have to meet their “arbitrary” demands. I think Ayn Rand put it very well in Atlas Shrugged (emphasis mine):
Tags: [atlas shrugged, mccain]If you want to know what you lost when I quit and when my strikers deserted your world—stand on an empty stretch of soil in a wilderness unexplored by men and ask yourself what manner of survival you would achieve and how long you would last if you refused to think, with no one around to teach you the motions, or, if you chose to think, how much your mind would be able to discover—ask yourself how many independent conclusions you have reached in the course of your life and how much of your time was spent on performing the actions you learned from others—ask yourself whether you would be able to discover how to till the soil and grow your food, whether you would be able to invent a wheel, a lever, an induction coil, a generator, an electronic tube—then decide whether men of ability are exploiters who live by the fruit of your labor and rob you of the wealth that you produce, and whether you dare to believe that you possess the power to enslave them.
Recount
In the years before I became an Objectivist, I thought I was liberal. I say “thought” because my position wasn’t so much of a stance *for* the liberalism as much as it was *against* conservatism. I had a basic belief that individuals should be free, and I saw conservatives — or more precisely, the religious right — as the biggest threat to our freedom. It wasn’t until my sophomore year in college, the year 2000, when I started to take ideas seriously. As I was making this move from liberalism through libertarianism (very briefly) to Objectivism, there was another interesting thing going on: The 2000 election between Bush and Gore. It was an interesting backdrop on which I made this transition, so naturally I was very interested when I heard HBO was making a movie about it. Its title is Recount, and I finally saw it a while ago. I thought it was an entertaining movie, but it reminded me of I can’t imagine what would make me vote for another Democrat.
Some background: I voted for Gore in 2000 (first vote in my life), and I was very worried when I saw that Bush had won. I’m not just saying that, either, I really thought that our country was in big trouble. So when I heard that there were some questions about vote counts in Florida and the outcome had not been set, I was delighted. I thought that recounting votes could only make the election more accurate, and possibly turn the final results, too. Also, I was really into statistics at the time (I have a minor in math), so I had a lot of fun following the online analysis of how the butterfly ballot had affected the election. I didn’t want Bush to be president, and it looked like there was a chance it wouldn’t happen.
However, as the recounting process continued I noticed problems in the way I was thinking. If some facts came out that I didn’t like, I’d quickly look some other facts that could “counter” them. Here are some quick examples: I’d say that it’s essential that we count every vote, especially in close elections. But there was a regular recount, just to make sure there wasn’t some drastic error… nah, throw that away. The Democrats only wanted to recount four counties… uhhh…. that’s ok, it’s up to the Republicans to set up recounts in the counties they want. Some basic recounts show that Bush still would have won… uh… they’re not counting the undervotes! And statistical analysis shows that the overvotes for Buchanan and Gore were really Gore votes! Oh, the four county votes still don’t have Gore winning… now it’s time to do a state-wide recount! Still alive!
The more I thought about it, the more uneasy and nervous I felt about my position. As good as I was arguing or rationalizing my position, I couldn’t get around the fact I wasn’t completely in-line with the facts. I thought that we should be be driven by the facts, and the picture I in my head is the cartoon detective from the Pink Panther cartoons, walking bent-over while he closely followed the Pink Panther’s trail with his magnifying glass. Instead of being that guy, following the evidence where ever it took me, I was looking everywhere except the trail because I knew it didn’t go where I wanted. And all while trying to claim that I was after the Pink Panther. Even pre-Objectivism, I could figure out that this was wrong. And not just wrong on this election, but in other areas, too. Once I got the ball rolling, it wasn’t long before I had my nose deep in an Ayn Rand book.
Watching Recount was like a flashback to those days. Most of what I saw in the movie is exactly how I remember, and it just reminded me of how dishonest that entire Gore election process really was. Yeah, Bush has a lot of problems, but it was the Gore-side that was really driving that mess. It really wasn’t about trying to get the most accurate vote possible; it was about one side versus the other. Here’s a great example of that I didn’t even remember: Gore’s team claimed to be all about wanting to count all the votes, including if that meant trying to derive “voter intent” from an incomplete voter ballot, but when they tried to throw out some military absenteee ballots because they weren’t dated properly or missing some other details. So, on one hand counting a vote is essential (even if the vote wasn’t completely exactly right), but on the other hand following the law to-the-letter is essential. It’s this kind of stuff that drives me crazy now.
It’s part of the reason why I can’t imagine what it would take for me to vote for another one. I see a lot of major problems with Republicans and Democrats, and I’m open to the idea that the Republicans pose the greater threat. However, the Democrat party seems to be the master of rationalism, and the Bush v. Gore battle is just one example of that.
Tags: [2000 election, bush, gore, hbo, recount]Google Browser Sync Discontinued
Via a post on Google Operating System, I learned today that Google Browser Sync will be discontinued at the end of the year. It was a pretty neat idea: You’d install a Firefox extension on your browser, which would upload your web history, cookies, etc. to a central server. Then if you installed the same extension on another browser, you’d be sync your browser state between machines. Basically, this means that each browser would appear to function as the same browser.
That’s a shame, I thought it was a good idea. I tried using it for a while and thought it was pretty neat, but I had to stop using it for a couple reason:
1.) Security. I don’t like the idea of my cookies and web browsing history in the hands of another party. Mostly the web-history, too. I develop sites for a living, and there are some URLs in my history that I don’t want anybody else to see. Passing URLs, even as a Firefox data, is not something I can responsibly allow.
2.) Had to start separating work from home. One of the best features of the program is that it lets you close down your browser at work, drive home, and then bring up the same browser, but think about that. Is that something you really want to do? I work from home enough, so when I’m on my home laptop I’d rather just have all of my work URL’s out of my sight.
These problems aside, I thought Google Browser Sync was a neat idea. According to the post above there are some alternatives, and perhaps I’ll check them out soon.
Tags: [google, google browser sync]The Happening (Spoiler Alert)
This post contains my thoughts about a movie I saw this weekend, The Happening from M. Night Shyamalan. Just mentioning the theme of the movie, in combination with the seeing the trailers, is enough for any Objectivist or rational person to accurately predict the plot, so here’s your warning:
HUGE SPOILER ALERT!!! STOP READING NOW IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE!
I’m also going to try to employ the “more” blog tag for the first time. So if you’re reading this in a RSS reader, you’ll probably have to click the header and go directly to my site to read the post. Sorry, I know it’s a pain, but I’m trying to follow movie-ending-giveaway etiquette.
Tags: [movies, the happening]Back From Canada
Last Saturday, my wife and I drove to Winnipeg, Canada to celebrate our first wedding anniversary. Why Winnipeg? We wanted to go somewhere new and we wanted to drive. Ashley and I hadn’t been to Canada, so once the idea popped up during brainstorming it stuck. We checked the map, and Winnipeg seemed to be the biggest Canadian city that was within driving distance from Kansas City (kinda, it’s still 11-12 hours away). We had a lot of fun, and I have a few comments to make about the trip.
- I was worried that the drive would be horrible, but it went really well. Between talking with my wife, Peikoff podcasts (I had to catch up on the 2nd through the 14th), OPAR audio book on MP3, and radio, I was able to keep my mind running all the way there and back. It went so well, I’d even be up for making a big drive like that again.
- We rented a car, of course. I’d hate to be stuck hours away from home with a broken-down car. We put 1,700 on a Mazda 3, which is a neat little car… except that there’s hardly any sound buffering between the outside and inside. When we got on the highway, we practically had to yell to hear each other over the highway.
- The Canadian border patrol was very nice to us. For some reason they were stopping everybody from entering the country at our port, and Ashley and I were waiting in a room with 40-50 people who also wanted to enter Canada. We thought we’d be stuck for hours, but an officer from the back came out, picked us out of the crowd, asked us a few questions, and said we could leave. We looked like everybody else waiting in line, so I have to assume that they let us out because they knew we drove so far?
- Canada looks a lot like America. If I took a random picture of the views we saw from Canada and compared it to random views from Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, and North Dakota, I think it would be very hard to tell the difference.
- I wonder how people in line behind me thought as they waited for me to figure out what each coin was worth when I tried to pay for stuff.
I like the idea of using $1 coins instead of a bill, but the $2 coin really threw me off. - I joked with my wife that all I really wanted to hear was someone say “eh” at the end of a sentence to me, and I got it!
There’s other stuff to share, but that’s all I have right now. Tomorrow…. back to work!
Tags: [canada, winnipeg]Iron Man and Making Money
I saw Ironman the weekend it came out, and I really liked it. So much so, I went to see it again with a friend the next week (I think 300 is the only other movie I’ve gone to see twice). While the movie is by no means perfect, I totally agree with everything Scott Holleran wrote in his positive review. Iron Man is just like Batman in that he’s a normal who turned himself into a superhero. This movie is heads-and-shoulders above the normal type of movie that is released today, and I’m looking forward to buying it when it comes out on DVD.
There was one huge plot-hole in the movie, though, and it runs counter to the other good ideas in the movie. Since what I’m about to talk about can be figured out from the movie trailers and the first ten minutes of the movie, but I’ll do the obligatory warning:
WATCH OUT, PLOT SPOILERS!
The hero, Tony Stark, runs a very successful, multi-billion-dollar weapons company. His biggest client is the United States military, who pays a premium for Stark’s revolutionary weapons. During a trip to Afghanistan to demonstrate his latest weapon, Stark’s convoy is attacked by terrorists who use Stark weaponry to take Stark hostage. Immediately after Stark escapes, he starts an investigation of his own company to figure out if they’ve been “double-dealing:” Selling weapons to America as well as America’s enemies. And sure enough, they are. In his mad quest for money and power, the movie’s villain sells weapons to terrorists.
I can imagine someone building a suit that allows man to fly at super-sonic speeds. I can imagine someone finding a way to protect the human body from the intense forces generated at that speed. I can imagine someone inventing a tiny engine that’s capable of generating enough electricity to power that flying suit. I can even imagine artificial intelligence that’s powerful enough to assist a scientist and appear to communicate like a real person. What I cannot believe, however, is the idea that a billion dollar business can build its success and power through working with terrorists, murderers, and thieves. That’s beyond belief. It’s impossible. When you think about what is involved in a business as large as Tony Stark’s, how long it had been in business, all of the people involved, and and all of the investment… how could this be built on terrorism? Making money requires producing something of value, which terrorists just don’t do.
This reminds me of part of Francisco’s money speech in Atlas Shrugged (emphasis mine):
If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.
It maybe be possible for someone to get away with a crime, but I believe that it will always catch up with you in the long-run. You can’t win a war against reality. Because of this, it’s impossible for me to accept today’s popular idea that businesses can be successful through lying and cheating. It’s not just true that crime doesn’t pay. Crime can’t pay.
Plus, how much money can a terrorist have, anyway? Stark’s primary client is the United States military, which probably spends more than every other military in the world combined… and there are some people in Stark’s business that think they can make some money by dealing with some thug in a cave in Afghanistan? No way.
Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed the movie. I’m just afraid that by promoting this bad idea, some of the good ideas were lost. Instead of Iron Man being about a self-made superhero, it’s about a guy who stands against evil businessmen. Or worse, it’s about a man who realizes that the act of making money has to be tempered by “social responsibility.” Iron Man is good, but it could have been even better.
Tags: [atlas shrugged, capitalism, iron man]