Daily Archives: March 8, 2017

Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 7 a.m.

Screencap: "The Day of The Doctor"

Heres a dark thought I recently had while contemplating the upcoming end of Peter Capaldi as The Doctor that is almost certainly going to make my Christmas needlessly sad this year: is the act of regeneration a fundamentally abusive one? I dont mean that in a fan way, how we all (rightfully) go on and on about the damage that the show does to us emotionally. I mean in a canonical sense, one that the players experience within the narrative.

Suicide and the threat of suicide are one of the many classifications of emotional abuse. The latter as a means of control, but the former as a means of revenge. Theres a classic example in literature when in the pages of Atlas Shrugged a minor character I dont feel like Googling the name of commits suicide in the bed of a woman who declined his romantic invitations. On her wedding day, no less. The object was clearly to hurt, and real world examples are not hard to find. The phrase, you made me do this sends chills down many peoples spines for a reason.

Of course, the question of whether the regeneration of The Doctor is death as we would understand it is complicated, but for the sake of argument lets take Ten at his word and assume that a new man saunters off with the life of The Doctor while the old one is gone. Lets look at some of those deaths.

Several can be ruled irrelevant to my question. Seven, Eight and the War Doctor died alone and bereft of companions, the last one intentionally so. The Second Doctor also, I feel, should not count in this as he, alone of all The Doctors, actively opposed regeneration and his companions were mindwiped (yes, I know the continuity arguments, but stay focused). The Meta-Crisis Tenth Doctor is also not included in this list for obvious reasons.

But what of the rest?

Almost no Doctor prepares his companions for the process. Ben and Polly were baffled at the change of the First Doctor to the Second. Peri was the same for the Fifth to the Sixth, as was Rose from the Ninth to the Tenth. To these young women (and one man), their dearest friend had been killed, and now they were forced to accept another in his place on his terms. Viewed in a certain light, that is really, really gaslighty, even if we look at things from The Doctors point of view. Nine even went to the trouble to record a farewell primer (which doesnt exactly hurt the suicide analogy), but never thought to mention he might regenerate until the last possible minute.

Even with Clara Oswald, who is ostensibly the only companion present at a non-Meta Crisis regeneration that had to have known the concept even existed, theres something so cruel in it. She literally begs of him, please dont change, even though the change is the end of the weak old man shed met earlier and the start of new adventures.

The simple answer to all of this is that The Doctor is kind of a thoughtless git, and I dare anyone to argue THAT particular point with me. The obvious aside, I see three possible motivations in The Doctors cavalier attitude towards his own death and the emotional damage it inflicts on those he loves (Eight at one point remarks hes going through bodies as if he owns a particularly dangerous bicycle).

The first is that he is constantly hoping to spare them the pain. This rather flies in the face of logic for the Tenth Doctor and his farewell tour, particularly when you consider the guilt Wilfred Mott must have felt at The Doctors sacrifice. Hell, go beyond that to the famous instance of Six trying to kill Peri in his post-regeneration madness, the woman Five had died to save. Having been an apostle of this funny pop culture religion for many moons, I dont think this one has legs.

The second is my original premise. Regeneration is a final act of emotional abuse by The Doctor on those who circumstances have ended his current incarnation. Its a petty moment of hurt amidst all the nobility The Doctor is an avatar for, or maybe

Its a lesson, albeit a very painful one. One of the last things Eleven says as he hallucinates Amy in front of Clara is that Amy was the first face that face ever saw, and Clara immediately becomes the first face Twelve ever sees. Our actions, in The Doctors grasp of time, both save and doom the world. Meeting Amy and Clara were both the trajectory of Elevens life and the catalysts of his final death.

It hurts the ones we love to die, to be no more. Whether there is a Doctor is often immaterial to the fact of whether there is YOUR Doctor. The Doctor, who is unique among Time Lords for actually seeming to care who exactly he is during his incarnations, actually makes meaning of the span each inhabits. As such, he can only hook his fleeting mortality to ours by, well, dying. He dies to show us how life matters, even if that death is cruel.

Theres a literary convention based off a world religion that describes this concept perfectly, but I cant for the life of me recall it at the moment. Something about some resurrecting dude from a place that sounds like Gallifrey, but isnt.

Excerpt from:

Doctor Who: Is Regeneration a Fundamentally Abusive Act by The Doctor? - Houston Press

Meredith Jorgensen is News 8s Lancaster County reporter.

She joined the News 8 team in July 2003. Merediths goal is to tell the stories of the people of the Susquehanna Valley. She covered the tornado in Campbelltown, Lebanon County, and the Amish School Shooting and the Empire Building Collapse in Lancaster County.

Meredith has won several Associated Press awards and was nominated for an Emmy Award in 2010.

She grew up in St. James, Long Island, N.Y. After graduating from Smithtown High School, she attended Ithaca College in upstate New York, where she majored in broadcast journalism.

She spent a semester in London and interned at NBC'S London bureau. Before joining News 8, Meredith worked for Blue Ridge Cable in Ephrata, anchoring "CNN Headline News Local Edition." Shes a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.

Meredith makes her home in Lancaster, with her husband Chris and their dogs, Barlie and Molly. Throughout high school and college, she was an avid cross country runner, hurdler and heptathlete.

But Meredith has recently found sitting down to be quite enjoyable.

Her favorite movies are "The Departed" and "When Harry Met Sally."

Her favorite books are "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand and Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang by Chelsea Handler.

She looks forward to meeting many of you in the months and years to come. Please e-mail her at mjorgensen@hearst.com.

See more here:

Meredith Jorgensen - KCCI Des Moines

In the wake of Donald Trumps ascent to dominance in the GOP, conservative leaders blame Republicans for the calamity. But they shouldnt.

Before we turn to why they shouldnt, consider why they do.

There are many reasons Donald Trump is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, writes Dennis Prager, but the biggest reason is this: The majority of Republicans are not conservative.

David French observes that the party of Lincoln is in ruins, calls for conservatives to stay firm in their opposition to Trump, and scolds GOP leaders for supporting this reprehensible man.

Jay Cost says the Republican party of 2016 is a spectacular failure:

Lacking sufficient organization and largely bereft of vigilant leaders, it has proven itself incapable of refining and enlarging public views around a principled commitment to the national interest. It is little wonder that a demagogic, ill-informed outsider like Trump is on the cusp of capturing its most important nomination. The party lacks the strength to resist him.

And Matt Walsh chastises Trump-supporting Republicans who

turned out in droves for a left-wing vulgarian who, when hes not bragging of his adultery or fantasizing about dating his daughter or mocking POWs and the disabled, has taken to perpetuating conspiracy theories about how his former opponents father killed JFK.

Underscoring the insanity of supporting this mess of a man, Walsh recalls that Trump said himself, he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and these people would still follow himand, nevertheless, millions of Republicans have voted for him. There is no complaining now, Walsh concludes:

We cant whine about our demise. We chose it. Well, some of us did not choose it, yet we live in a country where millions of our fellow Americans did . . . And here we are. Thanks, Republicans.

Thats an indication of where conservatives are placing the blame.

First, let me acknowledge a kernel of truth in what these conservatives say: Every Republican who has supported or voted for Donald Trump is partly to blame for the political ascent of this repulsive, power-lusting opportunist. During the primaries, Republicans had the alternative of supporting and voting for Ted Cruz, a flawed but essentially good candidate, whose ideas and positions on the most pressing issues of the day were infinitely better than anyone elses in the race. So, shame on Republicans who had the means of knowing this, yet supported Trump (or anyone else) instead of Cruz.

But the political rise of Trump is not merely the fault of Republicans. It is also, and more so, the fault of conservativesespecially conservative leaders, both old and new.

The seminal act of conservative culpability in this regard took place in 1957, shortly after the publication of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

In the pages of her revolutionary novel, Rand had handed conservatives, and the world in general, an observation-based, demonstrably true philosophy that, in addition to providing principled guidance for choosing and pursuing life-serving values at the personal level, also provides a rock-solid foundation for supporting and defending freedom and capitalism at the political level. This book was a godsend to everyone who loves life, loves America, and wants to advance the ideal of a government dedicated to protecting individuals rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

What did conservatives do with this gift? They shat on it.

Two months after Atlas was published, William F. Buckleys popular conservative magazine, National Review, ran a review of the book, penned by ex-communist Whittaker Chambers. The reason for the scare quotes around the word review in the previoussentence is that it was not a review but a lie. A big lie. Indeed, it was and remains an unsurpassed (although often aspired to) model of intellectual dishonesty, injustice, malice.

The screed claimed, among myriad additional lies, that From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: To a gas chambergo!

To those who have read Atlas, that one claim is sufficient to convey the jaw-dropping depths of dishonesty involved in the so-called review. For those who havent read Atlas, Ill indicate briefly, without spoiling the plot of the novel, how obscenely dishonest this claim and the entire review it represents are.

Atlas is a story about the role of reason in human lifeabout the fact that the individuals reasoning mind is his only means of knowledge and his basic means of livingabout the principle that each individual is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of othersand about the principle that being moral consists in using ones mind to pursue ones life-serving values while respecting the rights of others to do the same.

Among the countless ways in which these ideas are vividly depicted and illustrated in Rands thousand-page novel, the heroes of Atlas take an oath, which they all uphold unwaveringly: I swearby my life and my love of itthat I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

As part of their commitment to living by this oath, the heroes call for a government that does one thing and one thing only: protects the rights of all individuals by banning physical force and fraud from social relationships so that everyone can act on his own judgment, produce goods and services, trade them with others by mutual consent to mutual advantage, and flourish in a land of liberty.

Also as part of their commitment to living by the principle that no one should ever sacrifice or be sacrificed for anyone, the heroes in Atlas, time and again, refuse to cooperate with government officials or unscrupulous businessmen who seek to violate anyones rights for any reason in any way whatsoever.

From this book, the reviewer for National Review heard a voice commanding: To a gas chambergo?

He did not. He lied.

He lied to discredit Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. He lied to stop people from reading her work or taking her ideas seriously. And William F. Buckley and the editorial staff at National Review not only published this big lie and stood by it in 1957; they also have republished it repeatedly since then, most recently just a few years ago.

Following this initial conservative big lie about Rands ideas, similarly malicious treatments of Rand and her philosophy became the modus operandi of the leaders of the conservative movement. To this day, with few exceptions (Ted Cruz being one), if conservative leaders dont ignore Rands ideas (as Dennis Prager, Jay Cost, and Matt Walsh do), they misrepresent her ideas (as Daniel Flynn, Roger Scruton, Anthony Daniels, Andrew Klavan, Bill Whittle, and countless others do).

With their commitment to ignoring or maligning Rand and her philosophy of rational egoism, individual rights, and laissez-faire capitalism, leaders of the conservative movement have decisively severed themselves and their movement from any affiliation with the one philosophy that could support freedom, capitalism, and the American republic.

Before we turn to the results of such evasions and malice, lets briefly consider the motivations behind them.

If youre a professional intellectual (e.g., a philosopher, an economist, a journalist, or a political talk show host), and if your aim is to defend capitalism, and if an extremely careful thinker writes books with titles such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, might you have a professional responsibility to examine this thinkers arguments and to determine whether her views are true and worth sharingor false and in need of (honest) dismantling?

Why, then, have conservative intellectuals chosen instead to ignore or misrepresent Rands ideas? Why wont they consider the principles of her philosophy, take them straight, represent them accurately, and either acknowledge that they are trueor explain where Rand erred?

Here, we can only speculate. But I think the answer is rather straightforward.

Almost to a man, conservative intellectuals seek to anchor capitalism in religion, faith, and altruism. Rand, however, sawand demonstratedthat doing so is impossible. She showed that capitalism, the political-economic system of individual rights and self-interest, can be supported only by a morality of individual rights and self-interestnamely, rational egoism. Rand further sawand demonstratedthat for a morality to be valid, it cannot be derived from supernature via revelation or faith; rather, it must be derived from actual nature via observation and logic. And Rand not only demonstrated these (and many related) truths; she did so with such clarity and concretization that there is no way to analyze her works and point out where she erred in any substantial or fundamental waywhich is why no one has.

So, people who desperately want Rand to have erred about what is necessary to defend freedom and capitalismand who are unwilling to face the fact that she got these matters righthave two choices: (1) They can ignore her ideas; or (2) They can misrepresent them and thus appear to have acknowledged and dismissed her ideas, while actually having dismissed strawmen.

Why are conservatives unwilling to face the fact that Rand got these issues right? Again, we can only speculate, but, given the nature of Rands ideas along with uncontroversial facts about conservatives, the answer appears clear.

Rands philosophy opposes religious dogma and exposes it as baseless; thus, conservatives who are unwilling to challenge religious dogma cannot bring themselves to give her ideas a fair hearing. Conservatives, by and large, were taught, from Sunday school onward, that reason cant deliver the deepest, most important truthsonly faith can. They were taught that being moral consists in obeying Gods commandments, that selflessness is good and selfishness is evil, that we are our brothers keeper, that we must be openhanded toward the poor and needy, that we know all of this because the Bible tells us soand that none of this is to be challenged.

Well, Rand challenges all of it. And she not only challenges it; she also disproves itby proving (or demonstrating) the contrary in each respective area. For instance:

Conservatives who encounter Rands demonstrations and proofs are thus faced (implicitly or explicitly) with questions such as:

And conservatives answers to such questionsin conjunction with their willingness or unwillingness to face the scoffs and scorn that likely will come their way if they embrace the truths Rand discovereddetermine whether they (a) choose to embrace or at least grapple with her ideasor (b) choose between ignoring or misrepresenting them.

Again, this is speculation. But I cant think of another plausible explanation for why so many conservativesand virtually all conservative leaderseither ignore or misrepresent Rands ideas. (If you know of another plausible explanation, let me know.)

Now, how has the conservatives dismissal of Rands ideas paved the way for the political ascent of Donald Trump?

To answer that, we need only answer the question: What happens when the leaders of a political movement ostensibly dedicated to defending individual rights, freedom, and capitalism ignore the only demonstrably true moral and philosophic foundation for those valuesand, instead, pretend that such values can be defended by means of religion, faith, and altruism?

The answer is: They fail. And they leave a vacuum where the philosophic defense of capitalism should be.

Here we need not speculate, because its simple historic record.

During the past several decades, when conservative-championed political representatives have held office in the White House or Congress or both, they have (in the aggregate) increased government intervention in the economy, increased regulatory burdens on businesses, increased government spending, increased taxation, increased the size and scope of the welfare state, and generally increased rights violations by the government. (For examples of all of this, see The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty; The Republicans Opportunity to Restore America . . . and Their Obstacle; Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis; The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty; The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here; and The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism.)

Well, when conservative leaders through their representatives in government expand rights-violating policies for decades on end, what do the citizens who were counting on those leaders to constrain government and reduce spending and cut taxes come to think of the ideas behind the movement? Naturally, they come to the conclusion that the ideas arent practical, dont work, and need to be replaced.

Replaced with what?

The answer to that is wide open and depends on what is available and easily digestible when the rebellion begins.

Most Americans are not professional intellectuals. They are not philosophers, economists, journalists, or political talk show hosts. Rather, they run or work in restaurants, doctors offices, tech companies, or countless other kinds of businesses that provide the material goods and services we need in order to live and prosper. In other words, Americans have areas of specialization, and they dont have time to investigate and grapple with every philosophic, economic, or political theory someone claims is true. They count on professional intellectuals to do the heavy lifting in those areas and to convey the essentials in laymans terms so that chefs, waitresses, doctors, and engineers can understand them sufficiently for their purposes. Just as professional intellectuals count on doctors to treat cancer and to explain the essentials of that process in laymans terms, and just as professional intellectuals count on engineers to make electronic devices and to explain in laymans terms how they work, so too doctors, engineers, chefs, and the like count on professional intellectuals to do their job. Its called division of labor.

But conservative intellectuals havent done their job. They havent identified and conveyed the essential ideas and principles necessary to support and defend freedom, capitalism, and America. Theyve chosen instead to ignore or misrepresent those ideas so as to avoid scoffs, scorn, or having to reconsiderwhat they learned in Sunday school. (Thank God the Founders werent conservatives.) And because conservative intellectuals failed to do their job for decades, those who had been counting on them to do their job went looking for someone else to professionally defend freedom, capitalism, and America.

Who did they find?

Well, when Americans looked around to see who might be offering new ideas about how to limit government to its proper function of protecting rights, they saw no professional intellectuals with such ideas. What about Ayn Rands ideas and the handful of professionals who advocate them? Intellectuals from both the progressive left and the religious right had already discredited Rands ideas in the minds of their readers and listeners. Ayn Rand? Isnt she the materialist who says its morally wrong to help other people? Well, thats all I need to know about her and her philosophy. And: Wasnt Rands big book Atlas Shrugged about why men of ability should send lesser people to gas chambers? Thats monstrous. How could anyone even consider her ideas?

So freedom-loving Americans saw no professional intellectuals prepared to defend individual rights, capitalism, and America on solid ground. And they were not about to turn to that horrible Rand person.

Where did they turn?

They looked past professional intellectuals. They looked for a problem-solver of a completely different variety. They looked for someone who is not a conservative but nevertheless is pro-freedom, pro-business, pro-capitalism, anti-left, and maybe even politically incorrect to boot. They looked for someone in the public eye who will say it like it is and cut deals and make America great again.

Enter Donald Trump.

Unlike conservatives, who drone incessantly about Judeo-Christian ethics and the virtues of sacrifice and humility, Trump is a bold, brash, money-loving businessman. Sure, hes crudebut thats good, Republicans figured, because it makes the left apoplectic. And, yes, hes inconsistentbut thats OKtoo, Republicans figured, because hes a pragmatic, reality-oriented businessman who gets things done. And, best of all, they figured, Trump is not a conservativeso hes not going to retry those godforsaken conservative principles that have failed for decades on end to make America great again. Hes going to ditch principles and do what worksand thats what we want.

In short, Trump-supporting Republicans see him as a new, bold, non-conservative problem solverand as a big middle finger to the conservative leaders who have repeatedly let them down. Conservatives, these Republicans have said, Youre fired! Were hiring Trump!

Some may say my analysis is oversimplified. It is not. Nor does it exonerate Trump supporters. They are partly to blame for this nightmare. But conservative intellectuals bear the lions share of responsibility.

That conservative leaders havefor nearly sixty yearsignored or maligned the one philosophy that can support and defend individual rights, capitalism, and the American ideal is an observable fact. That conservatives could have embraced Rands philosophy and used it as a rock-solid foundation for their efforts to establish and maintain a rights-protecting government and a free society is clear as day to anyone who reads Rands work. And that the failure of conservative leaders to do so paved the way forand indeed necessitatedthe rise of someone to fill the void is a matter of natural law: In political philosophy, as in physics, nature abhors a vacuum.

Donald Trump is now the standard-bearer for the Republican Party because when conservative leaderswho, by their chosen profession, had a responsibility to identify, convey, and apply a viable philosophy to support rights, freedom, and capitalismwere handed a philosophy that clearly could do so, they ignored or maligned it. And they did so for decades.

Republican presidential candidate Trump is a product of conservative leaders evasions. Hes their Frankenstein. Hes their fault.

Have other factors contributed to the rise of Trump? Yes, many other factors have. But conservatives evasions are the fundamental cause. If conservative leaders had embraced rather than ignored or misrepresented Ayn Rands ideas, conservative efforts to defend freedom, capitalism, and the American ideal would have been anchored in an irrefutable moral and philosophical foundation; thus, America would now beor would at least be headed in the direction ofthe rights-protecting republic it is supposed to be. In such a context, a vulgar opportunist such as Trump couldnt garner political support from any sizable portion of the population. Instead, hed be using the best words to complain about the difficulty of cutting deals without the coercive power of eminent domain.

So the point here is not that no other factors have contributed to the political ascent of Trump. Rather, the point is that the fundamental cause of his ascent is the evasions of conservative leaders.

What is the solution to this problem?

There is no quick fix. Conservatives evasions have plunged America deep into a swamp of unprincipled politics and philosophic confusion. The only way out of the muck is by means of a new movement led by new intellectuals. The intellectuals needed for this movement are those who are willing to look at reality, to think for themselves, and to embrace and convey the philosophical, moral, and political ideas that actually support a system of individual rights, freedom, and capitalism.

In other words, the solution is for new intellectuals to do what conservative intellectuals should have done but have refused to do ever since 1957: Read Ayn Rands works, see whether her ideasmake sense, and, if they do, embrace them and use them to argue for a return to the American ideal of a government that does one thing and only one thing: protects rights.

Those who want to learn about Ayn Rands ideas can profitably start almost anywhere in her corpus. If you like fiction, you might start with We The Living, The Fountainhead, or Atlas Shrugged. If you prefer nonfiction, maybe start with Philosophy: Who Needs It, or The Virtue of Selfishness, or Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

If you want a quick overview of Objectivism, see What is Objectivism? For an article-length primer on Rands morality of self-interest, see Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rands Morality of Egoism. And for a systematic presentation of her theory of rights, see Ayn Rands Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society.

Wherever you start, know this: Rands ideas challenge the fundamental ideas youve been taught about philosophy, religion, morality, rights, and politics. And bear in mind that Rand is the first to point out that you should not accept her ideasor anyones ideasunless they make sense to you. As she puts it: The most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth.

But if you give her ideas a hearingrather than listen to conservatives who misrepresent them as a matter of courseI think youll see that they make sense, that they are grounded in perceptual reality, and that they support freedom, capitalism, and the American ideal like nothing youve encountered before.

If you do come to see that Rands ideas are sound, you can then join the movement that should have been soaring since 1957 but that conservative leaders chose to cripple with their dishonestythe movement dedicated to supporting individual rights, freedom, and capitalism by reference to the observation-based moral and philosophical foundations on which these values depend: the Objectivist movement.

Related:

Sign up to receive our free weekly newsletter.

Link:

How Conservatives Begat Trump, and What to Do About It - The ... - The Objective Standard