Ed Hudgins

Judith, et al -- There are lots of irrational elements in Wagner's plots. After all, Parsifal is supposed to be an innocent fool which somehow makes him a hero, sort of. So a question for some thread might be "What is the most rational opera, even if you're not a fan of the music?" I'm a big fan of Vaughan William's Symphony Antartica, originally done for the soundtrack for the film Scott of the Antartic. The Adrian Boult version with the London Philharmonic is a classic but I like the Pervin with London. It contains the spoken preludes to the four movements, from Shelley, the Psalms, Coleridge and Scott's diary. Judith, be careful when you listen to it: velour and cream are one thing; but didn't you get like fourteen feet of snow? Robert -- "Yes" to Wagner, "Yes" to Mahler, "Yes" to Richard Strauss, "Yes" to Steiner, "Yes" to Herrmann, "Yes"!!!!!

Judith -- Speaking of you bathing in heavy cream, there is a Richard Strauss piece entitled "Schlagobers" or whipped cream. Years ago I recall a very politically incorrect album cover of a Germanic-looking blond in a huge mound of the the stuff with her head poking out of the top and a hand poking out as she licked her finger. Sadly I can't find that picture online, only the little chocolate cover below. Of course if you want to post your whipped cream picture ...

Judith -- The mythic nature of the story in Wagner's Ring and the rather large plot holes in those opera do often undermine the logic of the emotional impact of the drama. In the case of Wotan in Walkure, we see a continuance of his deceit from Das Rheingold. Yes, the rational thing would be for Wotan to say "To hell (for Nibelheim!) with my wife." But, alas, he gave his word. That's why I love the line in his Farewell about how the man who will wake Brunnhilde will be "Freier aus Ich, der Gott" ("Freer than I, the God.") The "Un Del Di" is truly one of the great -- perhaps the greatest -- aria ever. It indeed sends chills up your spine! Your descriptions of your reactions to Vaughan Williams and Puccini certainly point to the sensual nature of music. Just make sure you don't roll in the cream before the rolling in velour sheets; it could be rather messy! By the way, even though this is a Wagner thread, here's the National Symphony doing the Dvorak New World Symphony on March 17 at the Kennedy Center. I had the best seat in the house, on the side overlooking the stage. I could see the notes on the score of the violists in front of me. And the music was great!

John -- Have you seen The Flying Dutchman, one of Wagner's early and shorter opera? It's a fairly tight story with good, memorable music. Also I find that as a story Walkure is one of Wagner's best and most human operas, with great music. From both a dramatic and musical perspective, "Wotan's Farewell" at the end is one of the best scenes in all opera. Wotan's favorite daughter has gone against his will because, as she expalined, she knew that his true heart went against his explicit orders. But he must punish her. He's angry at the disodediance but torn up inside. As he prepares to put her into a magic sleep he sings of how never again will he look into her eyes, hear her happy voice, etc. As a concession to her, rather than allow the first comer to awaken her and take her as a wife, he surrounds the rock with a fire that can only be breached by a fearless hero -- we know it will be Siegfried -- who is "freer than I, the god." Wotan is enslaved by his only web of lies and decit. The drama as Brunnhilde and Wotan look at each other for the last time, the words and the unsurpassed music make it a memorable scene.

And I'll be on the same show on Thursday, March 1 at 12:07 Eastern time. Objectivists on the air!

[Pat Michaels, an actual climatologist and Cato Institute scholar, mounts another attack with facts on the environmentalist cult. It's not just the assault on freedom from this cult that's the danger; it's the assault on science and objectivity. Scientology had L. Ron Hubbard and this cult has Al Gore.] ---- February 26, 2007 Inconvenient Truths by Patrick J. Michaels Patrick Michaels is senior fellow and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction. The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland's 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100. Where's the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker's Summary from the United Nations' much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore's film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent. Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly. Atmospheric methane concentration hasn't changed appreciably for seven years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC's methane emissions scenarios as "quite unlikely." Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.'s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001. "The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the rates observed since 1993," according to the IPCC, "but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future." According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000 yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100, shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century. "Was" is the operative word. In early February, Science published another paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland's ice loss from its huge glaciers has suddenly reversed. Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore's hypothesis. Instead, there's an unrefereed editorial by NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change — edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that scientists had to choose "the right balance between being effective and honest" about global warming — and a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by the author, again Dr. Hansen. These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to "do" something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock must be down to eight years! It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various "solutions" for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century. That's too small to measure, because the earth's temperature varies by more than that from year to year. The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto — i.e., less than nothing — for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy for today). Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade. But it's well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob. And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels — resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows. And there's other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can't even do Kyoto? When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And it's not just Gore's movie that's fiction. It's the rhetoric of the Congress and the chief executive, too. This article appeared in the National Review (Online) on February 23, 2007.

Judith -- I've heard good things about the Tennstedt Mahler. Sounds like you have some good listening ahead! Yes, Tristan und Isolde is quite powerful, musically and dramatically. It's Wagner's most focused opera on human love, though I think his most human Ring opera, Die Walkure, is better overall. Wagner, of course, saw himself creating a new art form, the musical drama that integrated much more tightly music and plot. That's why I love the "Mild und leise" from the last act! Unfortunately, companies like to experiment with weird staging, as it sounds like they did in the version you have. I saw a Rheingold last year in which the gods were like garden party 1930s English royalty. The music overcame the silly staging. (But I thought that sort of staging worked in the movie version of Richard III with Ian McKellen.) The French especially tend to be into weird stagings and I'm affraid a lot of otherwise right-thinking folks have caught the French disease. I saw a more traditional Walkure staging a couple of years ago in DC with Placido Domingo as Siegmund that was excellent all around. I suspect the version I'll see soon in DC will be sillier, but the music and singing will still carry it. By the way, while many might disagree with me, I see Puccini's Madama Butterfly as the same in terms of integration of music and drama as many Wagner opera. I saw that one again recently and the "Un bel di" is in the category of the Tristan aria as one of the handful of best in all of music.) In the 19th century a young Japanese girl, Butterfly, has been married off to an American sailor who promptly sails away. It's been three years. Will the man she loves return? She explains to her skeptical maid. Here's doing this piece the justice it deserves, with words in Italian and English below: Italian -------------------------------- English Un bel dì, vedremo -------- One fine day we'll see levarsi un fil di fumo -------- arising a thread of smoke sull'estremo confin del mare -------- in the distance from the edge of the sea E poi la nave appare. -------- and then the ship appears. Poi la nave bianca -------- Then the white ship entra nel porto, -------- enters the port romba il suo saluto. -------- thundering its salute. Vedi? È venuto! -------- See? He is coming! Io non gli scendo incontro. ------- I don't go down to meet him. Io no. -------- Not I Mi metto -------- I stay là sul ciglio del colle -------- on the ridge of the hill e aspetto, e aspetto -------- waiting, waiting gran tempo -------- a long time e non mi pesa, -------- I won't tire. la lunga attesa. -------- of the long wait. E... uscito dalla folla cittadina -------- And from out of the crowd un uomo, un picciol punto -------- a man, a little speck s'avvia per la collina. -------- in the distance climbing the hill. Chi sarà? chi sarà? -------- Who shall it be? Who shall it be? E come sarà giunto ------- And as he arrives che dirà? che dirà? -------- What shall he say. What shall he say? Chiamerà Butterfly -------- He shall call "Butterfly" dalla lontana. -------- from afar. Io senza dar risposta -------- I feel like responding me ne starò nascosta -------- I stay quite concealed. un po' per celia -------- A little bit to tease e un po' per non morire -------- A little so I won't die al primo incontro, -------- at our first encounter. ed egli alquanto in pena -------- And somewhat in fear chiamerà, chiamerà: -------- He'll call, he'll call. Piccina mogliettina ------- Dear little wife olezzo di verbena, -------- little orange blossom i nomi che mi dava al suo venire. ------- The names he called me when he came here. Tutto questo avverrà, ------- All of this will occur te lo prometto. ------- I promoise you. Tienti la tua paura, -------- Put aside your fears. io con sicura -------- I have certainty fede l'aspetto. ------- faith that he'll appear.

Barbara -- An excellent observation about listening to Mahler. I was first attracted to the strength of his music. But he's a composer that I can listen to over and over, as you say, allowing the music to play itself out and go where it's going within you.

Sorry Barbara, wrong Wolfe. But what a beautiful story! Thanks for posting! And I'm sorry to hear that Winnipeg was not a Wagnarian hotbed. NYC, LA, DC and lots of places in Germany are better on that score. And Judith, who do you have doing your Mahler set? (I'll be seeing Mahler's 1st in a few months with the National Symphony under Slatkin, who's a big Mahler fan.) Also I'm glad you found your Tristan. It's probabaly Wagner's least theatric opera but, as I mentioned, has some incredible music. Judith is no doubt in ecstasy right now listening to the "Mild und leise" from Tristan. But for those of you who, through complete, irresponsible neglect of your rational self-interest, don't have a disc and libretto of that opera readily at hand, here is a link to Kirsten Flagstad doing it and here is the libretto in German and English. Isolde, standing over the body of Tristan, simply cannot comprehend that he is dead as she sings to his grief-strickened friends of her love and death. If this does not move you, it might be because you are dead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV9ievcSKwU Mild und leise ------ Softly and gently wie er lächelt, ------ how he smiles wie das Auge ------- how his eyes hold eröffnet ------ fondly open --seht ihr's, Freunde? ------ do see, friends? Säht ihr's nicht? ------ would you not see it? Immer lichter ------ always brighter wie er leuchtet, ------ he shines, Stern--umstrahlet ------ how in a blaze of stars hoch sich hebt? ------ he raises himself aloft? Seht ihr's nicht? ------ do you not see it? Wie das Herz ihm ------ how his heart mutig schwillt? ------ boldy swells? voll und hehr ------ full and proud im Busen ihm quillt? ------ rises in his breast? wie den Lippen, ------ how from his lips, wonnig mild, ------ joyously tender, süsser Atem ------ sweet breath sanft entweht: ------ gently flows: Freunde, seht! ------ Freinds, look! Fühlt und seht ihr's nicht? ------ do you not feel and see it? Höre ich nur ------ do I along hear diese Weise, ------ this melody, die so wundervoll und leise, ------ which so wonderfully and softly Wonne klagend, ------ bliss lamenting Alles sagend ------ saying everything, mild versöhnend ------ gently reconciling aus ihm tönend, ------ sounding from him, in mich dringet, ------ forces itself into me, auf sich schwinget, ------ rises by its own power hold erhallend ------ gently echoing um mich klinget? ------ resounds about me? Heller schallend, ------ Ringing more brightly, mich unwallend, ------ flooding around me, sind es Wellen ------ are they waves sanfter Lüfte? ------ of gentle breezes? sind es Wogen ------ are they billows wonniger Düfte? ------ of blissful fragrance? Wie sie schwellen ------ How they swell mich umrauschen, ------ murmur about me, soll ich atmen, ------ shall I breathe, soll ich lauschen? ------ shall I listen? Soll ich schlürfen, ------ shall I drink them in, untertauchen? ------ plunge into them? Süss in Düften ------ sweetly in their fragrance mich verhauchen? ------ expire? In dem wogenden Schwall, ------ in the billowing flood, in den tönenden Schall, ------ in the echoing sound, in des Welt-Atems ------ in the world-breaths wehendem All-- ------ wafting Allness-- ertrinken-- ------ drown-- versinken--- ------ sink--- unbewusst--- ------ unconscious--- höchste Lust! ------ highest joy!

I discovered Wagner some 35 years ago, about the time I discovered Rand. I've seen all of his operas on stage except Tristan, most several time. I'll be seeing Die Walküre for the forth or fifth time at the Kennedy Center in a month. Wagner as a person was a real pain and his ideas about much -- including Jews -- were lunacy. (Interestingly, Wagner chose as conductor for his last opera, Parsifal, Hermann Levi, a Jew.) But in music one can separate the aesthetic experience from the artist's personal issues and even from the explicit philosophy expressed in the plots of operas. Certainly the Christian sacrifice stuff in Parsifal is crazy. But the Transformation music from Act I is some of the most beautiful you'll ever hear. The Flower-maiden scene from Act II is lovely as well; if Parsifal we're such a fool -- considered a Christian virtue -- he would have given into their temptations! Sometimes Wagner's philosophy is interesting. For example, in the Ring cycle the god Wotan is undone by his own deceit. In Act III of Die Walküre, the most human of Wagner's Ring operas, his daughter Brünnhilde has disobeyed him because, as she explains, she knew his true heart and obeyed it, not his explicit orders that were coerced from him by his wife. He punishes her by putting her to sleep on a rock surrounded by a magic fire. But as a concession to his love for her, she can be awakened only by the bravest man -- we know this will be Siegfried -- who is "freer than I, the god." He is a prisoner of his past deceits. Also remember that at the end of Götterdämmerung the gods are destroyed and all that is left in the world is human love. Starting with some of the orchestra music from Wagner is a good way to get into him. The preludes/overtures to Der fliegende Holländer , Tannhäuser and Lohengrin and Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg and Tristan are excellent. And the final aria of Tristan is certainly one of the best in all opera. By the way, it was in the prelude to Tristan that Wagner used truly revolutionary music techniques. Also the music builds up tension but never really resolves. Women hearing it for the first time were supposed to have fainted. By the way, for Judith or others interested in getting into the opera part of Wagner, Act I of Die Walküre is a great place to start. But for one of the most moving and emotional scenes in all of opera and indeed all of music, listen to the end of the opera, when Wotan says farewell to his most beloved daughter, Brünnhilde. Or better still, watch the broadcast version by James Levine and the Metropolitan Opera from 2001. Barbara's observation about not disowning your love of particular artists is right on the mark, as her story about the conflicting evaluation of Tom Wolfe by her and Rand. (Barbara, I hope you enjoy Marsha Enright's piece in The New Individualist on Wolfe!) Art is such a personal thing that we each must approach it as individuals. This isn't to say that there isn't bad art or bad standards; it is to say that given the function of art, what gives the maximum aesthetic experience for one might not for another.

Chris -- I use to have a nice view of that aforementioned monument out my window!

Judith -- Glad you liked the piece! Too bad you'd need to travel to Richmond or Cincinnati to view statues of heros because there are too few real ones in the world today. We need to work on that!

Here are Cincinnatus, the Roman statesman who, after taking up the office of dictator, defeated the barbarians in several weeks and set aside power to return to his plough, and Washington, also with fasces, also setting aside power. The Washington statue is Houdon's from the Virginia state house.

[From our archives] Example of Our First President by Edward Hudgins Originally publishing in The Washington Times February 22, 2004 -- George Washington unfortunately has become a cliché. For an older generation, he was too often treated as such a mythic figure that it was difficult to appreciate his true importance. In today’s politically correct society many treat him as a white, male oppressor. Most of us celebrate his birthday by shopping the sales at the mall. This is not a bad use of our time, but it is appropriate to take a moment to reflect on the real greatness of the real Washington and the moral lessons he taught us. Washington exemplified the spirit of early America. He was in his heart and for most of his life a farmer and an innovator who developed new crops and agricultural techniques. He valued the production of wealth as a worthy goal in life. But he also understood that the freedom to produce often must be fought for. Washington was the general who won America’s independence from Britain, then one of the world’s strongest powers. It was an incredible feat. In 1777, when he marched his 12,000 ragtag volunteers to winter camp at Valley Forge, their prospects were as bleak as the bitter weather. Some 2,000 men died from the brutal cold and from sickness. But the volunteers persevered in large part because of Washington, who forged them into a formidable army. He was no great orator but he had the inspiring words of Thomas Paine read to his frozen troops: “These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” This certainly is an appropriate epitaph for Washington and the Continental Army soldiers who ensured the survival of the United States. Washington’s achievements reflected his outstanding moral character. He set for himself the highest standards in everything he did and thus became exemplar for his associates and his fellow countrymen. Indeed, when he presided over the Constitutional Convention, he spoke little. It was his example—the fact that the other delegates were in the presence of Washington—that kept those delegates on their best behavior and inspired them to look to the good of the country. But Washington was not some ever-frowning moralist; he enjoyed life, whether at a dance or dinner party or just riding through his beloved Mt. Vernon estate. Washington hardly considered himself a philosopher like his friend Thomas Jefferson. But he lived his philosophy. For example, he was born into a slave society but his experiences in life led him appreciate the evils of that institution. He freed his slaves at his death. Perhaps Washington’s most important legacy was his attitude towards political power. After his victory over Britain some suggested that he be made king of the new America. He adamantly refused. He wanted to return to his farm. In this he followed the example of the retired Roman Senator Cincinnatus who was called away from his farm by a Senate that gave him absolute power to defeat an invading army. As general, Cincinnatus accomplished his goal in a matter of weeks and then, with total power, the esteem of his people and an army in his hands, gave up his position and returned to his plough. Sculptor Jean Antoine Houdon’s statue in the Virginia state house, the only one Washington every posed for, depicts him as a general setting aside his sword and returning to civilian life. Illustrative of his deep integrity, Washington resigned from the Cincinnati Society, an organization for Revolutionary War veterans, because he feared it would create in the new nation a hereditary class of nobles. Washington believed that individuals should be honored for their own achievements, not for the achievements of their ancestors. Washington, our first president, set the example for future presidents by limiting himself to two terms in office. He is reputed to have said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." This is an understanding that too many American citizens and politicians have lost. George Washington indeed should be honored by all Americans today as he was by Henry Lee who wrote at the time of Washington’s passing that he was “First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

Victor -- Never mind my touchy-feely intellectualizing; yours' is the right Howard Roark response!

Judith -- Good description. And the human-haters don't want us -- men and women -- to make mother Earth our mistress. They're just no fun!

Chris -- So sorry to hear about your health problems. And I just saw you recently at Cato, etc. Hope you'll still be able to join us at the Summer Seminar. And to your question, the schedule should be posted any day now! Best regards, Ed

[Even though I'm just an old bachelor, since there's a thread for it, I might as well re-post my Valentine piece from a few years ago. Enjoy! -- Ed] The Public Side of Private Love :heart: by Edward Hudgins February 14, 2003 -- Romantic love is the predominant theme in modern American culture. It's the number one topic of popular music. Movies that aren’t love stories usually have an amorous subplot. Affairs saturate soap operas and Oprah-type TV focuses on relationships. Valentine's Day is devoted to love. And the activity that is most associated with and often mistaken for romantic love—sex—is an industry in itself, with magazines, videos, and Web sites devoted to every desire and proclivity. One wonders, why with all this love in the air we have crime, hate and anger in our society? One also wonders, why something as profoundly personal and private as romantic love should be such a public matter? Essential activities of human life do not require intimate involvement with others. While good parents are important, ultimately we each create our own moral character. While good teachers are valuable, ultimately we each must acquire for ourselves the skills needed to make a living and to do fulfilling work. Further, we can each pursue elevating or relaxing pastimes by ourselves: reading a book, watching a ballgame. But how much richer our lives are if we can see in the character and actions of another person those values and traits that we admire most. And how much richer our lives are if another person appreciates us for our highest virtues and best qualities. And how wonderful it is if we can share mutual interests and activities with another: going to movies, plays, museums, sporting events, or restaurants; getting together with friends; and, yes, having sex, not as an ephemeral physical act but as a joyous celebration of our life with someone we love. And how happy we are if we can build a life, a marriage, a family together with another person. How blessed and joyous and full our lives will be if we love another and are loved in return! "Love" is a verb and "making love" means creating a world and a life with our beloved that only two can share. It is a private world founded on shared experiences, values, and emotions, and on a subtle and intimate understanding of one another. Those who share such a love might want to share the fact of their happiness with friends and family. But ultimately they’ll devote their energy and efforts to enhancing their own world, their own sanctuary. They won’t worry about seeking the approval of others. They won’t want to open every aspect of that world to others because that world is too precious to be opened to the random eyes of others. So why should such a private matter as romantic love be a matter of public concern? Much pop culture expresses and reflects a superficial version of romance that one would expect to appeal to sixteen year olds. But hey, we were all sixteen once! To the extent that individuals can retain throughout their lives the thrill and excitement that accompanies a new romance, these aspects of our culture reflect a healthy appreciation that happiness should be our goal in life. Too often, though, popular culture delivers instant gratification at the expense of real romance, and too many adults, allowing vapid culture to lead them by the nose, stay at the adolescent level of superficial infatuation, thus forgoing the deep and rich satisfaction of a mature love. Such culture dulls the senses and the soul, making romance less likely and life more hopeless and empty. Still, true romance in the private lives of individuals, which should be a private concern only, makes an important contribution to the public good. As Ayn Rand explained, lovers must "stand naked in spirit, as well as body" before one another. In romantic love at its best, lovers are mirrors for each other’s souls. We want our beloved to see the best within us and we want our best to be reflected in the affection and adoration shown to us by our beloved. Rand also likened love to a "command to rise," to strive to be our best. The moral character of individuals and thus moral foundations of a free society are strengthened by true love. So those without a love on Valentines Day should at least be glad about what it stands for, and those with loves should count their blessings, renew that love and celebrate the happiness that they have earned! ---- Edward Hudgins, Ph.D., is executive director of The Atlas Society/Objectivist Center.

There's a documentary on PBS Monday Jan 8 (and probably repeated) on Anti-Semitism Today that gives some history and mentions specifically the relationship between the Nazis and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

Thanks MSK! You're right that the Nazis had a real influence in the Middle East. Saddam's Baath Party certainly had direct influnce from Nazis. And the propaganda that the Nazis used are still used in the Arab-Muslim world. The savagry goes very deep. Best, Ed

Saddam Hussein's Execution by Edward Hudgins January 4, 2007 -- Saddam Hussein is deservedly dead, hanged as the heinous criminal he was. But the process by which justice was administered was disappointing and highlights the wide gap in values between Iraq’s culture and that of any civilized country. I wrote three years ago ("A Trial for Saddam Hussein," December 17, 2003) that a trial of Hussein offered an opportunity for Iraqis to affirm universal principles of justice the way the Nuremberg trials did after World War II. Nazi war criminals faced charges of committing aggression, crimes committed during war and crimes against humanity. The judges were representatives of the victors, but this was not victors' justice. True, the Soviet government, whose leaders deserved the same treatment as the Nazis, had a representative on the panel of judges that included members from the United States, Britain and France. But the process allowed the Nazis to defend themselves and several were even acquitted. But most important, the crimes of the Nazi regime were documented for all to see. Principles of justice plus a detailed look at how they were undermined offered an object lesson to all countries seeking to keep the commitment of "never again." In Iraq, Saddam was convicted and executed for the 1982 murders of 148 people in the town of Dujail in the wake of an assassination attempt against him. He deserved his fate but that trial did not lay out the broader principles of justice that should govern any legitimate regime. Nor did it review the full scope of his regime's crimes that led to the torture and deaths of hundreds of thousands. At the Nuremberg trial Hermann Goeing, the highest ranking Nazi in the dock, tried to dominate the proceedings, making a case for his regime. It didn't work. The judges and prosecutors made sure the trial didn't become a circus. By contrast, in Baghdad Saddam was allowed to use his trial as a theater platform to continue to stir up his supporters. The Nazis hanged at Nuremberg were taken to the gallows in an orderly manner, allowed to make any last statements they wished, and then were dispatched. Such a process, even when executing vile criminals, acknowledges them as human beings, albeit morally failed ones. It makes the point that while they deserve their fate, the actions that so damn them constitute their tragic waste of their own and others' human potential and lives. At Saddam's hanging he was taunted by executioners with shouts of support for Moqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr is the Islamo-fascist Shiite death squad leader who murders Americans and other Iraqis. In a just country he would share the gallows with Hussein. Thus the execution of Saddam is seen as one group of murdering thugs killing a murdering thug opponent, not as a legitimate government administering justice. Only the Iraqis could actually elicit sympathy for a mass murderer swinging at the end of a rope. The situation in post-war Germany when the Nazi criminals were dispatched and the situation in Iraq today offer a stark contrast between the values underpinning the two countries. After the war there were certainly committed Nazis whose only regret was that they lost. But there were also those who favored some Nazi policies but understood too late the regime's folly would and did lead to tragedy. There were those who were deeply ashamed of themselves and their country. And there were those who had opposed the Nazis. A few fought the regime. Many were its victims and many didn't have the opportunity or courage to oppose it. After the allied victory nearly all Germans simply wanted to put the war behind them, roll up their sleeves and rebuild the country. Germany still had enough of the civilized values manifest in the West to put the country and culture back on the path to a civilized regime. Symbolic of the commitment to those values was the fact that amid the rubble, with little electricity, running water, food and the other comforts of a modern society, Germans gathered in freezing, collapsing auditoriums, bundled in worn coats and hats, to listen to musicians who shared their situation play Beethoven and Mozart and remind themselves of what it was to be human. By contrast, in Iraq the culture today is driven by tribalism, religious fanaticism, Islamo-fascism, power lust, hate and envy. Yes, many Iraqis want peace and the opportunity to rebuild their lives. But too many are motivated by savagery from the depths of their souls. They value killing hundreds of each other each week over respecting the lives, liberties and property of one another, that is, the principles of civilization. Perhaps they deserve to be free but too few are actually fit to be free. Establishing a democratic regime on these values is building a house on quicksand. Saddam Hussein is dead but his malignant spirit survives and runs with the blood in the streets of his country. What must die for civilization to live is not any given individuals but the anti-life values that they represent. ----- Hudgins is executive director of The Atlas Society and its Objectivist Center.

Every Day a New Year By Edward Hudgins [The Washington Times, among other publications, featured an op-ed on "Every Day a New Year" by Edward Hudgins, the Atlas Society's executive director. The staff and trustees of our organization wish you a very happy New Year's day and happy 2007!] Janus, the Roman god after which the first month of our year is named, had two faces. One looked at the past year and the other looked ahead at the year to come. On New Year's Day in ancient Rome the new magistrates would assume power; we wait until a few days later to swear in ours since politicians hung over from partying would be even less fit for office than they already are. New Year's is traditionally when we reflect upon the year gone by and make solemn resolutions for the 12 months to come. Surveys find self-improvement rather than saving the world is most often on Americans' minds. The most popular vows are to lose weight, exercise more, save more money, stop smoking, and spend more time with family and loved ones. Most of those resolutions, especially the weight-loss ones, don't last past Superbowl Sunday snacks and certainly disappear with the first Valentine's Day chocolates. So are resolutions pointless? Should we all instead resolve not to engage in the futile and doomed effort of making promises to ourselves that we cannot keep? Looking back and looking ahead are not just the characteristics of a mythical deity. They are unique capacities of all human beings, aspects of our capacity for conceptual knowledge that differentiates us from lower animals. Our memories can reach out beyond the moment in which we actually exist to times gone by. We can reflect that "Boy did I make the right choice earning that degree, marrying that wonderful person, working hard for that promotion" or "I really didn't get myself around to fixing up the house for resale so we could move into a larger place" or "I still didn't organize that family reunion and some of the relatives aren't going to be around much longer." And our minds' imaginations can project ahead. "Boy would I look great in pants two sizes smaller" or "I can see myself finally being able to speak Spanish so they'll put me in charge of the international division. And with the higher salary I can send the kids to a good private school." With memory and imagination it's natural that as healthy human beings we would want to better ourselves. But a reason we often fail to do so is our failure to appreciate the relationship between means and ends. A resolution is not simply a set of words or some vision detached from this world. If we want to lose weight, yes, it's important to picture ourselves thinner. But the ends in this case losing weight are constituted in the means. "Losing weight" must also be seen as having a salad rather than a Super-Sized Grease Burger with Fries for lunch and having fruit or yogurt rather than nachos and ice cream for an afternoon pick-me-up. It must be seen as walking the four blocks to the store rather than driving. It must be seen as all the steps that go into losing weight. Our wills and imaginations must work together. Symbolism is also important to our consciousness; that's why we often set aside certain days as times to reflect upon and honor what we value Thanksgiving Day for prosperity, July Fourth for freedom. Thus New Year's Day is a good symbolic time to place ourselves on a better path. But we must take care not to be enslaved by the symbol. My friend Talia who looks great but thinks she needs to lose a few more pounds explained to me the dangers of the "start-on-Monday" diet. The beginning of the week is a nice symbolic time to begin a project. But if you fall off the wagon on Tuesday it's an error to wait for that magic, beginning of the week day to start anew. Don't wait on the weight; do it now. Different cultures mark one revolution of the Earth around the sun on different days. It's Jan. 1 for the West, late January for the Chinese and all over the calendar for other cultures. But any day that you see the need to act to make your life better and happier is the right day to start and to stick with it. So this year why not resolve to achieve all those great goals, to remember that your life is a 365 day per year project and thus that every day is New Year's Day. ------ Edward Hudgins is executive director of the Atlas Society and its Objectivist Center.

Congratulations guys!!! This will be a very Merry Christmas for you two indeed! Michael: From Brazil to Florida to the Chicago area. You're certainly moving from a warmer to a colder climate but I know the warmth of your relationship will more than make up for it and make ever day a summer's day!

Happy Birthday Kat! And may this be one day in a happy life!

Charles -- Thanks for your post about David's book Unrugged Individualism. I think it's one of his best and explores an important implication of Objectivism, that we not only create our own virtues and not only act in a just manner towards others but also that it is in our self-interest to create the sort of society and culture that will allow us best to flourish. Best, Ed Hudgins