China, What’s Up?

Today’s announcement by the FDA [not that anything they say should be followed blindly] that no-one should buy toothpaste made in China–due to the fact that there is a chemical normally put in anti-freeze, in their paste, comes as no surprise to me. Couple this with tainted dog food and gee, is their a pattern here?

 Is it my paranoia, or is China probing our “defenses” for future, more serious attacks?

Just wondering.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Report This Post

Imus in the Morning

Just the other day, on Don Imus’s radio show, [whom I don’t listen to] he and his producer made disparaging comments on the Rutger’s women’s basketball team, after their loss to Tennessee in the Women’s Championship game.

Here’s what they said:

“That’s some rough girls from Rutger’s”, said Imus. “Man, they got tattoos…”

“Some hardcore hos,” said show producer McGurk.

“That’s some nappy headed hos there, I’m going to tell you that.” said Imus.

Granted, this is pathetic behavior, broadcast over 70 radio stations across America. However, has anyone noticed yet another, institutionalized aspect of racism in the story?

 The National Association of Black Journalists demanded his immediate firing
after the man known as “Imus in the Morning” put his foot deep in his mouth

Excuse me? The National Association of Black Journalists? No white’s allowed there, I’m sure. I could go on, but I’ll leave it at that.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Report This Post

Leftist Screed Against Milton Friedman offers a “different view” [hehehe] on the Chilean success story. They never give up, do they?

 Here’s a sample:

While he was in Chile
Friedman gave a speech titled “The Fragility of Freedom” where he
described the “role in the destruction of a free society that was played
by the emergence of the welfare state.”
Chile‘s present difficulties, he
argued, “were due almost entirely to the forty-year trend toward
collectivism, socialism and the welfare state . . . a course that would lead to
coercion rather than freedom.” The Pinochet regime, he argued, represented
a turning point in a protracted campaign, a tearing off of democracy’s false
husks to reach true freedom’s inner core. “The problem is not of recent
origin,” Friedman wrote in a follow-up letter to Pinochet, but
“arises from trends toward socialism that started forty years ago, and
reached their logical – and terrible – climax in the Allende regime.” He
praised the general for putting
Chile back on the “right
track” with the “many measures you have already taken to reverse this

Powered by ScribeFire.

Report This Post

Future Book Purchase????

While at Borders this morning, looking over the table of new releases, I saw the book, “Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism” by Michael Goldberg. The book looked interesting and claimed serious “in-depth” research. However, as an Objectivist, I already know religion is again on the rise, here in America. Still, it might prove an interesting read….

Powered by ScribeFire.

Report This Post

Lewis talk rescheduled @ GMU for April

Quoting Craig Biddle @ The Objective Standard:

To the credit of George Mason University’s administration, the school
has decided not to submit to the “will of Allah” or to “his” followers
on earth.

The talk, one of the most important speeches a university student could possibly hear, has been set up for April 24, 2007 at 7:30pm.

Here’s a PDF of the flyer:

powered by performancing firefox

Report This Post

The Objective Standard for Spring 2007 !

Dear Subscribers and
Friends of TOS,


The print edition of
the Spring issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will
be accessible to subscribers on March 18. For promotional purposes, we are
making “The ‘Forward Strategy’ for Failure“ available early and to


Here are the contents
of the Spring issue:


From the Editor


Letters and Replies


The “Forward Strategy” for Failure

by Yaron Brook and
Elan Journo


The Rise and Fall of
Ancient Greek Justice: Homer to the Sermon on the Mount

by Robert


Induction and
Experimental Method

by David


Egoism Explained: A
Review of Tara Smith’s Ayn Rand’s Normative
Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist

by Diana


If you had a one-year
subscription that began with the inaugural issue (i.e., Spring 2006), then the
Winter 2006–2007 issue was the fourth and final issue in your subscription.
Don’t miss the Spring issue; it mails in just a few days! There are three quick
and easy ways to renew:


1. Renew online by
clicking here.

2. Print and fax (or
mail) our PDF

order form

3. Or call us toll
free at 800-423-6151.


If you’ve not yet
subscribed to TOS, now is the
time to act. While supplies last, you can still begin your subscription with the
inaugural issue.
Subscribe today and
receive the first full year of the journal all at once, followed by the Spring
2007 issue a few days later. Or start your subscription with whichever issue you
like; just let us know your preference.




Craig Biddle,

Objective Standard

powered by performancing firefox

Report This Post

Who is Gouging Whom? [by ARI Editorials]

  By David

Last Wednesday 79 members of the House of Representatives introduced a bill
instituting criminal and civil penalties on any corporation or individual found
guilty of gasoline “price gouging.” But the real gouger driving up gasoline
prices is not the private sector, it is our government. To “gouge” means to extort, to take by force–something that oil companies
and gas stations have no power to do. Unlike a government, which can forcibly
take away its citizens’ money and dictate their behavior, an oil company can
only make us an offer to buy its products, which we are free to reject. Because sellers must gain the voluntary consent of buyers, and because the
market allows freedom of competition, oil and gasoline prices are set, not by
the whim of companies, but by economic factors such as supply and demand. If oil
companies could set prices at will, surely they would have charged higher prices
in the 1990s, when gasoline was under one dollar a gallon! Because oil companies and gas stations cannot set their prices arbitrarily,
they must make their profits by earning them–by efficiently producing something
that we value and are eager to buy. In so doing, they assume great risks and
expend enormous effort. Over the decades, oil companies have created a huge
infrastructure to produce and distribute gasoline by investing hundreds of
billions of dollars in prospecting, drilling, transporting, stocking and
refining oil. In the absence of political factors like the 1973 OPEC oil embargo or the
Gulf Wars, the net effect of oil companies’ pursuit of profit has been to drive
the price of oil and gasoline, not up, but down. The price of a gallon of
gasoline (in 2006 dollars) fell from $3 in the early 1920’s to $2.50 in the
1940’s to $2 in the 1960’s to under $1.50 in the 1990’s. This downward trend is
all the more impressive because it required the discovery and exploration of
previously inaccessible sources of oil and because it persisted despite massive
taxation and increased government regulation of the oil industry. When we see the price of gasoline today, we should not accuse oil companies
of gouging, but rather thank them that prices are not much higher. The true culprit that we should condemn for driving up prices is the
government, which has engaged–with popular support–in the gouging of both the
producers and consumers of gasoline. Federal and state governments have long viewed gasoline taxes as a cash cow.
In 2003, for instance, when the average retail price for a gallon of gasoline
was $1.56, federal and state taxes averaged about $0.40 a gallon–which amounts
to a far higher tax rate, 34 percent, than we pay for almost any other product.
(Contrary to popular belief, gasoline taxes do not just pay for the roads we
drive on; less than 60% of the gas-tax-funded “Highway Trust Fund” goes toward
highways.) Along with high taxes, environmental regulations–justified in the name of
protecting nature from human activity–have dramatically increased the
production costs, and thus the price, of oil and gasoline. The government, for example, has closed huge areas to oil drilling, including
the uninhabited wilderness of ANWR and the out-of-sight waters over the Atlantic
and Pacific continental shelves. This of course significantly reduces the
domestic supply of oil. The government has also passed onerous environmental regulations that make it
uneconomical for many old refineries to keep producing (50 out of 194 refineries
were shut down from 1990 to 2004) and discourage new refineries from being built
(no major refinery has been built in the last 30 years). Regulations such as these push the surviving refineries to operate at almost
full capacity, creating a situation where any significant reduction in the
production of some refineries (e.g., from a hurricane) cannot be compensated by
increased production in others. Exorbitant spikes in prices, which many
attribute to oil companies’ “gouging,” are actually caused by government
constraints. If we want to stop the irrational forces that have been driving up the price
of gasoline and our cost of living, we must demand that our elected officials
eliminate the regulations and excessive taxes that restrict the producers of oil
and gas. It’s past time to stop gouging oil companies–and ourselves.

David Holcberg is a media research specialist at the Ayn Rand
Institute (Copyright (c) 2007 Ayn Rand Institute. All rights

powered by performancing firefox

Report This Post