Thanks for your patience, folks. I have about four half-finished mini essays just begging to be finished over the break. Stay tuned!

Update (12/9): I’ve been sinking my teeth into this book on and off again. It’s about the idea of Europe and how it has been floated around for millenia. I think the essays on Dutch republicanism and Kantian federalism are fantastic. I sometimes wish I wasn’t going to law school. Then I could pursue a dream of researching and teaching about federalism and all its varieties for the rest of my life. Now THAT would be cool.

Alas…

Anyway, the book has some insightful essays by historians, anthropologists, political scientists and philosophers. Look it up next time your hanging out in an academic library!

In other election news, the Atlantic reports:

On Tuesday, California voters overwhelmingly approved two ballot initiatives that were sharply opposed by the very same “victims” they were allegedly designed to protect. The final vote tallies are not yet in, but it looks like there was statewide approval for new criminal penalties on prostitution-related offenses, while a Los Angeles-only proposal to mandate the use of condoms in all pornographic films shot in the county is also heading to victory.

Ouch. And then there’s this:

The entire ballot initiative process in California has long been derided because of the way it allows special interest groups to bypass the legislature and create laws themselves. It also makes ballot an jumbled mess and frustrates voters with confusing and sometimes contradictory proposals. These are just two of latest examples that will have Californians spending a lot of effort helping people who didn’t ask to be helped.

Indeed. There is more here. I almost feel guilty for not voting now. California is often acknowledged (or derided) as a state known for its social tolerance, but I haven’t seen this at all in the political arena. From banning gay marriage to demanding that porn stars wear condoms (I wonder what that will do our state’s multi-million dollar porn industry?) to imposing stiffer penalties on sex workers, Californians can hardly claim to be the socially liberal torchbearers of a brave new world. Instead, I see a state populace comfortable with both draconian tax laws and draconian social laws. Socialism has never looked so good.

On the other hand Continue reading →

Sales of Atlas Shrugged soared to 445,000 copies in 2011, more than 50 years after it was published. Books about Rand are proliferating as well, including major biographies by Anne Heller and Jennifer Burns. Is there room for yet another volume in this increasingly crowded field? Marsha Enright has shown that there is.

Ms. Enright promises a lot with her title, Ayn Rand Explained, and she delivers. She brings to her task a background reaching back to the early 1970’s when she first met Rand. Her writing suggests a keen intelligence and an independent spirit. The result is a book that is thorough and careful but not pedantic.

Her personal recollections portray Ayn Rand’s warm and approachable side and not the angry cult figure suggested by some. Particularly charming is the story about the cat jewelry.

A new reader or a moviegoer who wants to learn more about Rand and her philosophy, objectivism, will soon discover that there are two camps of followers. David Kelley’s Atlas Society promotes the view that objectivism, as a set of ideas, is necessarily open to extension by any serious thinker who accepts its basic premises. The Ayn Rand Institute is a far larger group because it receives royalties on the heft sales of Rand’s books. The ARI calls objectivism a closed system. Ms. Enright addresses this conflict head-on, explaining both positions evenhandedly and giving credit where credit is due.

Careful analyses of Rand’s novels are followed by a 40-page explication of objectivism, proceeding systematically, as Rand did, from metaphysics to epistemology to ethics to politics and esthetics. Some readers may find this section heavy going and may want to skip it and return later. If they do return, they should be well rewarded.

A separate chapter on politics takes up the uneasy relationship between libertarians and objectivists. She offers back-to-back sections outlining the case for the “plaintiff” (objectivism) and for the “defendant” (libertarianism). I found these sections particularly interesting now that ARI is making nice to libertarians, a sin that earlier got David Kelley kicked out of ARI.

I thought Nathaniel Branden deserved a little more sympathy than he got in this book. He and Barbara Branden have been the victims of vicious smears from the orthodox camp. Nathaniel has admitted the errors he made in his relationship with Rand while Rand never admitted hers, which were far greater. He has redeemed himself many times over, in my view, by the positive difference he has made in the lives of a great many people, both in person and through his books and lectures.

“Ayn Rand Explained” will be my top recommendation to anyone who asks me about Rand and objectivism.

I have heard conservative radio talk-show callers express indignation at immigrants who don’t “become American citizens,” as if it showed ill-will on the part of the immigrants, or lack of love for America.

These calls demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of our immigration laws. First, you have to become a legal immigrant (get the famous “green card”). Most foreigners cannot qualify for this in any way. The doors to this country are not wide open. (See below.) For those who are allowed to apply, it takes time and patience, unusually so, because the Immigration and Naturalization Service is one of the worst, least responsive of Federal bureaucracies. Then, once you are legal, you have to wait four to seven years to apply for citizenship. This arduous process leaves little room for ill-will. It’s exhausting and discouraging.

I have also heard many indignant liberals (liberals are almost constantly indignant or “appalled”) make statements implying that American immigration laws discriminate on the basis of race. They do, but not the way liberals think. In fact, it’s extraordinarily difficult for a European (most European are “white” in American classification) to emigrate to this country. There are reasons I don’t want to go into here though I will on demand. The numbers show unambiguously that people from Latin America or Asia are admitted legally in several times the numbers of Europeans. Of course, federal legislation considers almost all Latin Americans and all Asians in this country as “protected minorities.” This means that they deserve special treatment because they were historically oppressed by reason of their race.

Don’t blame me or conservatives in general for the stupidity of the relevant federal laws. They are entirely the handiwork of liberal opinion. Be it as it may, here is the summary: If you are “brown” or “yellow” your chances of coming here legally are slim. If you are “white,” your chances are practically nil.

If you find all this hard to believe, please take a little trip to the Statistical Abstract of the United States. It’s readily available on-line and easy to read.

Much of our political debate in this country is wasted because people are ill-informed of the issues about which they feel strongly. There is no excuse for this situation. Obtaining info used to be arduous; it used to require specialized skills. Not anymore.

I keep hearing conservative commentators contrasting legal immigrants with illegal immigrants as if the former where civilized, orderly people while the latter were queue-jumpers. This is based on a big, significant misunderstanding of our immigration laws. Let me make fairly simple a fairly complicated matter.

The average Irish school teacher say,  has approximately zero opportunity to emigrate legally to the US. Let me say this again; the operational word is “zero.”  I say approximately because he my yet win the lottery. I don’t mean this figuratively but literally. There is a lottery for would-be immigrants from areas of the world that have not contributed many immigrants to the US recently. The areas included are spread over Africa and western Europe. It’s exactly a lottery: You get a (free) ticket; if your number comes up and you are not otherwise barred, you are it. A very small number world-wide is admitted through the lottery.

Legal admissions to this country normally occurs through a combination of political asylum, decreed by Congress every so often on a country by country basis (Cuba, si, Haiti, no),  selection of individuals whose skills and talents are deemed useful to American society, and “family re-unification.” The latter is by far the most important, numerically. The skills-based admission quota is so small that in recent years, it was filled during the first half of the first day when applications opened. Our Irish school-teacher does not belong to one of the desired categories anyway. Continue reading →

Voici une communication de mon copain Antoine Casublo,  avocat a la cour:

Je sais, je vous ai souvent raconté ma vie-mon œuvre, mais, là, je vous invite à acheter le Journal du Dimanche de cette semaine.

Alors que je finissais ma formation d’avocat, stagiaire au cabinet de mon ami Francis CHOURAQUI, Nathalie NEUMAN est venue nous voir pour nous raconter l’histoire de son père Emile, de ses grands parents, Sarah et Mordka, disparus à Auschwitz.

Arrivés de Pologne dans les années 30, les parents d’Emile avaient acquis un petit lopin de terre à Villepinte dans la banlieue parisienne afin d’y faire un potager qu’ils entretenaient le weekend et durant les vacances d’été.

Hélas, raflé en 1941, déporté par le convoi n°6 parti de Pithiviers le 17 juillet 1942, Mordka n’aura pas eu le temps de beaucoup profité de ce potager.

Restée seule avec ses deux enfants Emile et Reine, Sarah est allée se cachée sur ce terrain de Villepinte dans la cabane en bois, au fond du potager. Mais en 1943, à son tour, sûrement dénoncée par des voisins, elle fut arrêtée devant sa cabane, sous les yeux d’Emile par des gendarmes français qui la conduire à Drancy. Continue reading →