To everyone who helped in putting on the Anchorage premier of Not Evil Just Wrong, I have to say well done. It was a massively successful night considering the relatively short time and lack of any real University support.

The film itself was quite good at achieving the reception it was looking for. Rather than rehash many of the well known arguments put forth by skeptics of AGW, it went for the angle of warning against extreme environmental policies that could severely hinder economic growth both in developed and underdeveloped regions. It argued not solely from a scientific perspective but from an ethical one.

The highlight of the night however was not the movie but the Q & A session. The first questioner took issue with Ann and Phelim's portrayal of environmentalists as anti-human. The producers simply pointed out that the results of their policies were just that despite what they may attest to. 

Another questioner hinted that the US government involvement in the Middle East was due to its addiction to oil. Phelim quipped that the reason the government is there, at least in the case of Afghanistan was due to “19 little shits murdering 3,000 people”. The crowd burst into cheer and the point was well taken.

Not to be outdone by her husband, Ann took on a few anti-industrial assertions about massive loss of bio-diversity (without any evidence of course) and passionately defended their positions. She went through a few examples of Leftist hypocrisy citing groups who flew to Copenhagen to protest air travel, or students claiming to not be in favor of mining while benefiting from its exploits by way of computers and iPods.

All in all everything went far better than anyone expected. The audience left the Wendy Williamson Auditorium with a more balanced perspective and some new information on the complicated issue of climate change. As successful as the night was for the CRs, we hope this is just the beginning and can’t thank Phelim Mcaleer and Ann McElhinney enough for their support and generosity. Whichever side is right on this issue one thing is for sure; Phelim and Ann have respectable motives for what they do, unlike the hypocritical demagogue that is Al Gore.

We are becoming a nation that no longer believes in the freedom to choose; there is really no other way to put it. In 2009 over 40,000 new laws were passed, many of which are nothing more than petty attempts by legislatures to micromanage our lives. Whether it’s the recent ban on trans fat in California or fish pedicures in Virginia, the notion that we ought to be able make decisions in our own lives is steadily losing ground. There are countless other examples but they all clash with the same principle. John Stuart Mill had it right when he stated, “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” The modern busybody however has shattered this concept and is willing to use the power of the state to force their neighbor to do what they feel is right.

This nanny tendency often initially comes from the knee-jerk reaction that because something is bad or immoral, it ought to be banned. During a 1988 debate over tobacco law, William F. Buckley dispelled this myth, “I would hope that we emancipate ourselves from the superstition that, that which is legal is necessarily honorable… It’s perfectly legal to contract syphilis, but it doesn’t mean that society is in favor of syphilis. As a matter of fact it’s perfectly legal to vote for Jesse Jackson. But that doesn’t make it reputable does it?” What needs to be understood is that in a free society, people will not always exercise their freedom in ways the majority of the population particularly likes. As long as the rights of others are not being infringed upon, people should be able to live out their lives without arbitrary interference.

One of the more seemingly reasonable methods by which the nanny-state arguments are promoted is to suggest that we should be able to limit freedom due to the possible increase of the financial burden on society. This is often used to pass seatbelt, helmet, tanning, as well as food related health laws. The obvious problem with this line of reasoning is that if you make this your exception to freedom of choice, there is really no limit to its application. You could apply this to any high risk activity or whatever is deemed as unhealthy. It is virtually a blank check to regulate every facet of people’s personal lives.

Another source of the busybody mentality stems from what John Locke called the “natural bias” that leads us to believe we know what’s best for other people. It is this paternalistic attitude that views the common man as a child who is incapable of caring for himself. As Paul Rahe points out, “There is a nanny inside all of us.” This bias is often magnified many times among public intellectuals, which might explain why the majority of them favor socialist policy. It is the system that looks to them to make all the decisions rather than the uncouth masses.

The culminating difficulty with arguing against this modern fashion of tyranny is the way in which it is introduced. Again Rahe was right when he called it “soft despotism” because it truly is despotism under a benevolent banner. We are told that these laws are for our own good, or that they produce a more harmonic environment among members within the community; that we need protection from ourselves. Or that the average person is incapable of making many of the complex decisions inherent in a modern society. Well I say the community can go to hell; I’ll keep my freedom thank you. We need to remind our representatives of the words of Lord Acton that, "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." It’s about time we begin repealing these frivolous laws rather than creating new ones, and telling these legislators to mind their own business.

Much has already been said about the factors that contributed to the victory of the now Senator Brown's campaign. From the unrest over health care legislation to Martha Coakley's very humorous self inflicted wounds, the aftermath and reasons behind it will be discussed for years to come. What you won't hear in mainstream media however is the real story, the true factor that led to the final push for Brown over the finish line. Far away from Massachusetts, in the cold northwestern edge of the North American continent lay the city of Anchorage. Where a few brave souls still dwelt who were loyal to the "Shining City Upon a Hill". Lady liberty was in distress and the call went out to anyone who dare receive it. Thankfully there still were quality men who were willing to answer her call, including your humble blogger, Ryan Mckee, Jason Cline, Bryan Zadalis, and Randy Williams. We took up the torch of freedom to once again defend our country from the devious and ever growing threat of the state planners. Under the warm and watchful eye of our magnanimous leader Casey Reynolds, the five patriots, if you will, worked endlessly in order to secure a Brown victory.

We made phone calls throughout the day, neither hunger nor the continuous voice mails daunting us in our task. Hours passed by as we wrestled with Massachusetts voters, using our God-given ability to reason, in order that we might show them the light; the truth.  We did not go unchallenged however as the old saying goes, “Even the donkey will attack when cornered.” And the Democrats threw everything they had at us, but despite their best effort we were still standing. We all did our duty that day, and even if the rest of the country won’t recognize it, the victory Tuesday was a direct result of what the CRs did on Monday. The claim may seem incredible to say the least, but deep down you know I am right. We defended the dream of our forefathers in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. In short, the DNC did their worst, and we did our best. Well done gentlemen.

"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."  -  Winston Churchill

The Underlying Tragedy
This article came to my attention yesterday and it seems to relate very much to my diversity piece. Enjoy.

This being my first official blog, I have decided to write about a sacred cow among the establishment, and one which has been a reoccurring theme throughout my education. Anyone who has spent any time in a public school over the past few decades has a good idea of the value most educators place on cultural diversity. From the outset, multiculturalism may appear to be something to embrace and accept, much like pluralism. However to the extent by which it has been promoted, there are serious questions as to whether the results have been beneficial to the understanding of students. That is the goal rather than being to embrace positive aspects of different cultures has become enamored with being sensitive to and celebrating every culture excluding Western. Which we are taught from an early age has only brought about genocide, slavery, and barbarism wherever it has been allowed to spread. It has become a crusade to remove any critical analysis or judgment and to view all cultures as essentially equal. They will claim that a certain farming method, mode of transportation or political system is not superior but only different, and that we ought to withhold any criticism in order to respect and celebrate the backwardness of our fellow men living in impoverished countries. Or that the most egregious violations of human dignity such as female genital mutilation are not objectively wrong but merely a cultural difference. Though one dare not make any criticism because for the cultural relativist, the right to criticize is only reserved for members within that culture, hence why they are so apt to tarnish the legacy of their own country.

The effect of these ideas on the students has been to produce a generation who lack the understanding and appreciation for the exceptional nature of both their own country and Western civilization as a whole. The success of the West was no accident, but rather according to the Austrian economist Friedrich A. Hayek a growth from, “…the foundations laid out by Christianity and the Greeks and Romans. Not merely nineteenth- and eighteenth- century liberalism, but the basic individualism inherited by us from Erasmus and Montaigne, from Cicero to Tacitus, Pericles to Thucydides…” It has been the acceptance of these and other ideas that have unleashed the creative power of man, equally protected under law, with basic rights and liberties. We shouldn’t view being judgmental of ideas and culture as a negative, but rather as essential to the growth and progress of a civilization.

The reason this issue came to my attention in the first place has been due to the fact that the UAA Diversity Action Council (which shouldn’t even exist) is presenting an award to any student who most promotes diversity on campus. In all likelihood the credentials for that will include only diversity in the arbitrary sense of things such as skin pigmentation and not anything meaningful like that of thought. Because of course a cultural relativist is willing to tolerate everything, except people who hold the view that all cultures aren't equal. That is simply too much a breech of their sensibilities.

To close I urge everyone who hears about a promotion of diversity to be wary and to consider the words of the American economist Thomas Sowell, “We need also to recognize that many great thinkers of the past-- whether in medicine or philosophy, science or economics-- labored not simply to advance whatever particular group they happened to have come from but to advance the human race. Their legacies, whether cures for deadly diseases or dramatic increases in crop yields to fight the scourge of hunger, belong to all people-- and all people need to claim that legacy, not seal themselves off in a dead-end of tribalism or in an emotional orgy of cultural vanity.”