Poor, poor John Edwards gets nailed for adultery.

“In an admission that rocked American politics, Mr Edwards, 55, said his egotistical belief that he was special drove him to have an affair with Rielle Hunter two years ago. ”

“In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became egocentric and narcissistic.” [emphasis mine]

His attempt to spin his actions as being rooted in self-interest relies on the commonly distorted concept of selfishness, which has hijacked the real meaning of the term and replaced it with a package-deal of non-sense. Altruism prescribes selflessness for the sake of others. People maintain this vague notion as the cornerstone of whatever hodgepodge morality they are brought up with. The result is the virtual destruction of the real meaning of the term - which is coincidentally a goal of such (a)moral codes. Here are Rand’s thoughts on the perversion of selfishness:

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.

This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

Unless Mr. Edwards views an adulterous and scandalous extra-marital affair (that likely spawned an illegitimate child) as being in his own self-interest, egoism isn’t to blame. A truly selfish person would see that dishonesty, betrayal, and hiding under a veil of secrecy are all attempt to evade reality - and can only lead to self destruction. Actually it’s precisely his lack of values, morality and character that led him to an affair.

Every stance, every position, every platitude uttered by this man implies a disdain for reality, rights and justice. This should surprise no one. On the one hand I consider the obvious embarrassment and pain this creep has caused his family, I am sympathetic to them.

I hope he, on the other hand, is miserable.

Paul Hsieh points out exactly why some countries are darker than others on this map.

All of these factors were mutually reinforcing, in that the respect for rights and reason created prosperity which allowed for more innovations in science, technology, capital markets and communications, which led to more prosperity, etc. But the roots of this prosperity were ultimately philosophical. Without a proper understanding of rights, grounded in a philosophy of reason, none of the prosperity of the Anglosphere would have been possible.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that the GDP map tracks closely with countries that still respect reason and rights, which tracks closely with the Anglosphere. The prosperity of modern-day Japan follows from the sweeping cultural and political changes imposed on that country during the American occupation following World War II, and some regard it as a part of the “Anglosphere” in that sense.

To the extent that we depart Capitalism (via abandoning reason as our means of survival and demolishing the sanctity of individual rights) our color will grow lighter.

To illustrate more explicitly:

We can replace the y-axis with any metric of any value - the x-axis will remain the same.

Via Boortz, I came across one gem in response to another.

Oh boy, where to start.

The first (bad cop) is a fine tribute to how small a grasp most voters have on what really matters about an individual, especially one who’s seeking to rule you. A few citations:

“He’s too new … and he needs to put some meat on his bones,” says Diana Koenig, 42, a housewife in Corpus Christi, Texas, who says she voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.

“I won’t vote for any beanpole guy,” another Clinton supporter wrote last week on a Yahoo politics message board.

Instead of judging based the candidate’s stance on freedom, sovereignty or justice, these people are more concerned with petty physical details, which are more easily integrated attributes that require much less thought. They feel an unnamed urgency to be involved with the election, but don’t have the slightest clue where to begin. So, they resort to the most basic means of judgment - evaluation of physical features - as a way to “get involved”. Man’s mind, his intellect, his philosophy -the only import aspects of a candidate- aren’t even a blips on their radar.

The article then tries to speak out to the more scientific minded drones with an appeal to authority, and departs with a hint of suspicion.

Dr. Scheiner didn’t disclose his patient’s exact weight, but medical observers estimate that the 6-foot-1.5-inch-tall senator appears to weigh at least 10 pounds less than the roughly 190 pounds that the average American man of his height weighs. The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article.

We then get to a curious proof of Obama’s ‘keepin’ it real’ side immediately followed by the transformation of such (supposed) vice into a tribute to his near deitous status.

Sen. Obama is not without vices. According to Dr. Scheiner’s medical report, he has quit smoking “on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success.” People close to the senator say he began smoking nearly three decades ago and smoked about five cigarettes a day.

Some voters say that even this adds to Sen. Obama’s somewhat superhuman persona. “I mean, really, who quits smoking and doesn’t gain any weight?” says 30-year-old Stella Metsovas, an Obama supporter in Laguna Beach, Calif.

[emphasis mine]

This article strives (in appearance) to be a candid insight into the diet, physique and eating habits of politicians in general and Obama in particular. There’s no mention as to why this topic is relevant or should be interesting. It’s written by, directed to and about those who seek the fast-food drive through election - where a brightly colored, yet simple icon will suffice as qualification for their support.

However, I think there is another motive that I’ll get to below.

So, we have irrelevant chatter.. and now an “insightful” response to it.

Timothy Noah (good cop) thinks all this skinny talk is nothing more than a facade for the real agenda - RACISM.

The promise of Obama’s presidency, in many people’s minds, is partly that America will move toward becoming a post-racial society. It’s pretty clear, though, that we aren’t there yet. When white people are invited to think about Obama’s physical appearance, the principal attribute they’re likely to dwell on is his dark skin. Consequently, any reference to Obama’s other physical attributes can’t help coming off as a coy walk around the barn.

It might be argued that body weight differs from certain other physical characteristics (apart from skin color) in that it has never been associated with racial caricature. Chozick wasn’t asking (and, I feel sure, would never ask) whether Americans might think Obama’s hair was too kinky or his nose too broad. But it doesn’t matter. The sad fact is that any discussion of Obama’s physical appearance is going to remind white people of the physical characteristic that’s most on their minds.

Race certainly seems to be on Timothy’s mind.

The problem is that ‘Race’ is an indicator or ethnicity. ‘Skinny’ is an adjective describing relative body mass. Yes, Obama has a particular race. Yes, he is skinny. For Timmy to grant correlation the upgrade to causation is a major stretch. By his standard, apparently picking any physical attribute of Obama could be cast as a racial metric.

These articles are perfect examples of the “titanic deck chairs” aura of our media. Two pundits chattering about misguided and totally irrelevant topics. The former a superficial ad hominem. The latter a smearing straw man. Both come across as underhanded variants of the vicious goal - to renounce an opposing stance not by reason and logic, but by evasion, diffusion and distraction.

I think they both are on the same team. Sure they’re both collectivist, but I mean on a more concrete level.

I think these stories are supposed to be legitimate and unrelated topics - however, I think the WSJ piece could very easily be an intentional lob designed to be knocked out of the park by an accomplicing lefty pundit.

What better way to kill two birds with one stone. They know that most of their audience think and operate on a superficial level. What better way to glorify Obama’s looks as virtues in once sense, and paint anyone as bigots who consider such as meaningful in another.

This is “Good Cop - Bad Cop” journalism.

From Paul Hsieh @ Noodlefood

The claim:

Perpetuating the Hollywood/dime fiction image of the cowboy propagates the false belief that Ayn Rand individualism was the historical way and will be the best future way to solve our nation’s problems. Truth is, the sodbusters were the key, the heroes: risking all, sticking determinedly in their forlorn shacks to raise their crops and banding together to raise their barns, build their schools and defend their homes.

The key to our nation’s past successes was Americans joining together in common cause, not individualism. Working together will also be the key to our future.

“Collectivist” Bill

[namecalling mine]

The response:

America was made by great individuals working under a system which (albeit imperfectly) protected their right to use their rational minds to create value and advance their lives. Where would we be without the likes of Thomas Edison, Westinghouse, and Henry Ford? This was a key insight of Ayn Rand and she deserves tremendous credit for promoting a philosophy that celebrates individual achievement — the philosophy that underlies the positive and optimistic “can do” American sense of life.

Of course individuals can and should band together voluntarily when it suits their purposes. I have no problem with “working together” with others for mutual benefit as a voluntary arrangement, as many did in the Old West.

However, this notion is too-often corrupted into a vicious morality which preaches that the collective should take precedence over the individual, that individuals should be coerced to help one other, and that therefore we need massive government intrusions into the economy (such as “universal health care”) to automatically provide for everyone’s needs at taxpayer expense.

This approach will destroy the sorts of individuals who made America great, and will eventually destroy America. We need to celebrate and support the individuals who embody the American spirit and work-ethic, not punish them.

“Individualist” Paul Hsieh

[emphasis and namecalling mine]

This is a textbook rebuttal to the delusion of collectivism.

Via HBL, a wonderful new quote:

“Work; it all lies in that. Count on no one but yourself. Say to yourself that if you have talent your talent will open the most tightly closed doors, and that it will put you as high as you merit to go. And, above all things, refuse benefits from the government; never ask protection from the state; you will leave your manhood behind you if you do. The great law of life is to struggle. Nobody owes you anything. You will triumph necessarily if you are a power, and if you succumb do not complain, for your defeat is just. Then respect money; do not fall into the childish fashion of crying out, with the poets, against it; money is our courage and our liberty. We writers, who need to be free in order to say what we think, money makes us the intellectual leaders of the century–the only possible aristocracy.” - Emile Zola