50th Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day

This NYU event -- "50th Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day" -- looks promising! (Note the revised schedule from my posting this morning: Dr. Milgram will be speaking before Dr. Bernstein.)

The 50th Anniversary of Atlas Shrugged Celebration Day in New York City

Who: Dr. Andrew Bernstein, Dr. Shoshana Milgram, Dr. Harry Binswanger, Dr. Allan Gotthelf... and you!

What: A day-long celebratory event in honor of the 50th anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged.

When: Saturday April 7th 2007, ALL DAY

Where: Kimmel Center, Room Shorin Auditorium (8th Floor), New York University, 60 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012. Also, the Empire State Building (!)

Registration: Non-NYU guests must register by e-mailing nyu@objectivistclubs.org.

Admission: The club is asking for a suggested donation of $20 from non-students in order to cover our expenses. (Also, please note that all meals and the Empire State building tour are to be paid on your own.)

SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

9am - 10:30am: Dr. Milgram, "Writing and Re-Writing Atlas Shrugged: Ayn Rand's Mind at Work"

10:30am - 11:30am: Snack Break (provided by the Club) and The Atlas Shrugged Trivia Game

11:30am - 1pm: Dr. Bernstein, "Atlas Shrugged as the Culmination of the Romantic Novel"

1pm - 2pm: Lunch Break (on your own)

2pm - 3pm: Open Mic: come up and share your favorite passage from the novel and/or your reason for wanting to come celebrate Atlas Shrugged.

3pm - 5pm: Drs. Binswanger and Gotthelf, "General Q&A on Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, and Objectivism"

5:30pm: Dinner and Drinks at the Heartland Brewery, Ground Floor, The Empire State Building

9pm: Trip up to the Observation Decks of The Empire State Building

FURTHER DETAILS

Dr. Milgram's lecture, Writing and Re-Writing Atlas Shrugged: Ayn Rand's Mind at Work: "In this lecture, as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged, we will go back in time to the years before the novel became fixed and final. Ayn Rand's manuscripts demonstrate -- in the words of Richard Halley, a character in her novel -- "what discipline, what effort, what tension of mind, what unrelenting strain upon one's power of clarify are needed to produce a work of art." After a survey of her philosophical and literary preparations, we will examine, selectively, her small-scale and large-scale editing, with special emphasis on sequences of romantic relationships and philosophical discourse."

Dr. Bernstein's lecture, Atlas Shrugged as the Culmination of the Romantic Novel: "Romanticism champions free will, holding that men can transform their lives by choosing proper principles and values. This is certainly true of the three greatest Romantic novelists: Hugo, Dostoyevsky, and Ayn Rand. Each -- in Les Miserables, The Brothers Karamazov, and Atlas Shrugged, respectively -- seeks to dramatize the world-changing potential of his particular philosophy. But only Ayn Rand presents a triumphant vision. In the other novels, the good, by the author's own standards, is not embraced. The power to choose the right ideas thus seems illusory in the very works of the advocates of volition. What, then, are the deeper premises held by Ayn Rand, but not by the others, enabling her to fully project man's capacity to shape his own soul?"

Dr. Binswanger and Dr. Gotthelf were both friends and associates of Miss Rand and are recognized leading experts on her philosophy. Dr. Binswanger has been professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute since 1994 and is currently writing a book on the causal nature of consciousness. Dr. Gotthelf is a visiting professor at the University of Pittsburgh where he holds a fellowship for the study of Objectivism, and he is also an authority on the philosophy of Aristotle.

Read more...

Time Waster

I wasted more time than I care to admit playing this simple but frustrating little game. My current high score is 328. (I got a big bonus for clearing the whole last board.)

Read more...

More Creationist Science

The fact that new life doesn't emerge from peanut butter jars proves that evolution is false, according to this evangelical Chuck Missler:



I'm most appalled by the willful ignorance of the theory of evolution shown in the video. Evolutionary theory doesn't concern the origins of life itself, but changes in forms of life over time. As far as I understand, questions about the origins of life itself are still unsettled and without any bearing on the truth of evolutionary theory. And, of course, even current speculations about the origins of life itself would never ever predict new life from peanut butter jars!!! (DUH!)

I would find this video funny -- if it weren't so typical of the ever-growing creationist misinformation campaign against evolutionary theory. Evangelicals number in the tens of millions -- and they're teaching this crap to their kids. As if that's not bad enough, they are determined to foist it on everyone in America. That would mean the end of biology as a science. It's unfathomable.

As an aside, the biography of the speaker Chuck Missler is rather interesting. In his early years, he was apparently an extremely talented computer engineer and businessman, meaning that he's no science dummy. Yet consider the circumstances under which he turned to God:

As Chuck notes, his day of reckoning came several years ago when -- as the result of a merger -- he found himself the chairman and a major shareholder of a small, publicly owned development company known as Phoenix Group International. The firm established an $8 billion joint venture with the Soviet Union to supply personal computers to their 143,000 schools. Due to several unforeseen circumstances, the venture failed. The Misslers lost everything, including their home, automobiles and insurance.

That's just so perfect!

Read more...

Lecture Handouts

A few days ago, I was delighted to discover that the Ayn Rand Bookstore has an online collection of handouts for the lectures they sell. The URL of the page that lists all of them is not public, but it is printed on the case of many of the relevant courses. I've never noticed that before, but you can check for it on lectures you've bought. The collection surely isn't complete, but I found quite a few handouts that I was missing.

Also, please don't post the URL in the comments -- or elsewhere. These handouts are intended only for those who've bought the relevant courses.

Read more...

Yaron Brook on CNBC

From ARI:

Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, is scheduled to appear on CNBC's program "On the Money" today, March 28, 2007, between 7 and 8 pm Eastern time, (4 and 5 pm Pacific time), to discuss the question: Do we need national standards for mortgage lenders?

Read more...

FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine

Colorado's political machine is poised to institute socialized medicine in the state in the next year or so. Lin Zinser is fighting that ominous prospect with FIRM, a new organization devoted to promoting Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. FIRM's statement of principles reads:

We stand for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

America was founded on the principles of freedom and individual rights. Applied to medicine, the law must respect the individual rights of doctors and other providers, allowing them the freedom to practice medicine. This includes the right to choose their patients, to determine the best treatment for their patients, and to bill their patients accordingly. In the same manner, the law must respect the individual rights of patients, allowing them the freedom to seek out the best doctors and treatment they can afford.

Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) promotes the philosophy of individual rights, personal responsibility, and free market economics in health care. FIRM holds that the only moral and practical way to obtain medical care is that of individuals choosing and paying for their own medical care in a capitalist free market. Federal and state regulations and entitlements, we maintain, are the two most important factors in driving up medical costs. They have created the crisis we face today.

What does FIRM do?

researches and studies the work of scholars and policy experts in the areas of health care, law, philosophy, and economics to inform and to foster public debate on the causes of rising costs of health care and health insurance.

sponsors and holds public educational programs, lectures and town hall meetings on issues regarding the causes of the crises in health care and health insurance, and on the morality and economic costs of various health care programs and proposals.

makes speakers available for radio and television interviews, for professional conferences or symposiums, and for local, private or public meetings and talks in Colorado.

FIRM provides you with information about how to protect freedom and individual rights in medicine, and you decide how to use it.

FIRM is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization; it does not endorse any health care treatment, product, provider, or organization. Membership levels begin at $35 per year and are tax-deductible, as provided by law.

On the FIRM web site, you can sign up to the "News" and/or "Activists" list. You might also want to read the updated version of Leonard Peikoff's essay "Health Care is Not a Right" and Linda Gorman' informative report "The History of Health Care Costs and Health Insurance."

Also, don't miss FIRM's blog: We Stand FIRM. (If you have a blog, please add that to your blogroll.)

Please help me spread the word about FIRM! In speaking to ordinary people, I've found strong opposition to socialized medicine, but little knowledge of the already-in-motion plans to institute that in Colorado and other states. So please encourage people to write letters to their state and federal representatives opposing socialized medicine, including its modern incarnations in euphemisms: single-payer, comprehensive, universal, and/or mandatory healthcare. If you live in Colorado, you should also write the 208 Commission, i.e. the body charged with soliciting and evaluating proposals for comprehensive healthcare reform.

It is possible to stop the spread of socialized medicine, I think. Now's the time to do it. If you wait now, you'll be waiting much more in the future... in lines for your substandard medical treatment, that is.

Read more...

It's Here!

My copy of The Objective Standard just arrived in the mail today. Woo Hoo!

On a totally random note, Paul just reminded me that he was #30 in the country in the Putnam Exam in his senior year of college. (He was a math major at MIT.) Our conversation immediately thereafter went as follows:

Diana: Wow, you're smart!

Paul: I told you I was smart!

Heh. I love that kind of silliness.

At the time, Paul and I were actually talking about our seemingly strong compatibility as bridge partners. Apparently husband-wife teams are pretty rare in bridge due to the tendency to argue over hands. Paul and I never do that -- or least we've never done that yet. The only issue for us is equality of skills -- and we have that in bridge, although not in tennis, skiing, or math puzzles. So long as we're basically equal in skills, then however the other person might screw up, it's darn clear that we're liable to do something equally stupid sometime soon. That makes anything more than temporary annoyance unwise!

Read more...

Duplicate Bridge

As I've mentioned before, Paul and I started playing bridge about nine months ago. It's the most demanding card game we've ever played -- by a long shot. It requires so much conceptualization, thought, and planning that it puts all other card games to shame. Yet each hand is its own unique challenge. Hence, we've found it very, very interesting.

We've taken about 24 hours of duplicate bridge instruction with three other couples since July. Paul and I also regularly play duplicate match games on Bridge Baron, then compare what we did. So our bidding and play has become very similar -- and pretty decent. Paul has also been reading a slew of bridge books, then instructing me with helpful tidbits on occasion. Given the complexity of the game, we're still very much novices though.

Last night, Paul and I spent the evening playing duplicate bridge at the Colorado Springs Bridge Center. They have a Monday night of duplicate bridge for novices organized by our excellent bridge instructor Mike Nussbaum and his lovely wife Fran.

Although we were playing with other novices, it was the first time that we played by strict rules with strangers, as opposed to informally with the friends in our classes. So that was stressful. By the end of the 14 hands over two-and-a-half hours of play, I was completely wiped out. In terms of mental exhaustion (as opposed to fun), it was almost like I'd just taken the SATs or GREs. I don't expect to be that exhausted in the future, but I was pretty well amazed that a hobby could do that to me. Then again, it is bridge.

Happily, Paul and I did pretty well. In duplicate bridge, you need to do well relative to all the other north-south or east-west pairs playing your exact hands. So it doesn't matter whether you win or lose points in the particular hands you play, only whether you lost more or less points than the other pairs when they played those hands. (That eliminates any luck in the distribution of cards from the scoring.) Paul and I ended up in first place amongst the six east-west pairs. We earned .35 master points. To put that in perspective, once we earn 20 points, we can no longer play in this novice night. We obviously have a ways to go!

I think my brain is still tired this morning. Luckily, the paper on Descartes' and Newton's respective theories of space and body that I'll be writing today doesn't require quite so much brain power as bridge did last night!

Read more...

Ted Haggard and Nathaniel Branden

Ed Cline recently posted a positive review of Jim Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics on Rule of Reason. It's worth a look.

Let me digress for a moment...

A few days ago, I watched an HBO documentary by Alexandra Pelosi entitled "Friends of God." (The video showing an evangelical anti-evolution seminar that I blogged a few weeks ago was from this documentary.) Ted Haggard is featured prominently in the documentary. His downfall from high influence due to his meth-and-gay-sex scandal broke just as the documentary was wrapping up filming, if I recall correctly. In one interview, he speaks passionately of the need for religious leaders to be moral exemplars, not just for the sake of their own flock, but for everyone. Notably, he said that -- with earnest sincerity and perfect ease -- while actually indulging in his own dark vices.

Ted Haggard could not have said what he said in the way he said it -- not if he valued moral honesty. I don't think that mere repression would allow a person to become so very comfortable with that gross contradiction between his own preached ideals and his own behavior. More would be required to seem so sincere, particularly a positive pleasure in the capacity to deceive anyone and everyone. Any guilt he felt was thoroughly suppressed in public; he assumed a persona of his own creation, based on the expectations of others. And that's why he was so very charismatic.

When exposed as a moral fraud, the enormous evil of Haggard's actions probably crashed down on him -- at least for a time. I don't think he just regretting getting caught, as so many criminals do: Haggard wasn't that kind of deliberate con artist. He was a sincere believer in Christian ideals, at least at one time. However, I'm sure that three weeks of therapy can't even begin to scratch the surface of his twisted character, meaning that Haggard's self-excusing and/or self-righteous facade will soon return. A person cannot live in the face of utter moral failure; unless he conceals himself with self-deception, he would be driven to suicide.

I mention the case of Ted Haggard in this post for one simple reason: I suspect that his psychology is fundamentally like that of Nathaniel Branden. Despite the radical differences in the ideals in question, the basic pattern is strikingly similar. If that doesn't seem plausible to you, then you might wish to read Jim Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. It's very revealing, to say the least.

Read more...

Dressage Freestyle

I cannot even begin to explain how difficult this level of training is to achieve with a horse. So just watch in amazement, not just at the skills of the horse but also at the total but quiet control exerted by the rider.

Read more...

Teaching Evaluations for Socrates

If Socrates Had to Undergo Teaching Evaluations by His Students:

"He always keeps talking about these figures in a cave, like they really have anything to do with the real world. Give me a break! I spend serious money for my education and I need something I can use in the real world, not some b.s. about shadows and imaginary trolls who live in caves."

"Also, I believe this Republic that Prof. Socrates wants to design — as if anyone really wants to let this dreadful little man design an entire city — is nothing but a plan for a hegemonic, masculinist empire that will dominate all of Greece and enforce its own values and beliefs on the diverse communities of our multicultural society."

"My first thought about this class was: this guy is really ugly. Then I thought, well, he's just a little hard on the eyes. Finally, I came to see that he was kind of cute. Before I used to judge everyone based on first impressions, but I learned that their outward appearances can be seen in different ways through different lenses."

Heh.

Read more...

Just Another Friday Afternoon at the Office

I was working today at one of our outpatient radiology offices, when the CT technologist asked me to take a look at the images on a 64 year old woman who had been sent over for a scan by her family practice doctor because she had been experiencing some recent shortness of breath and coughing.

When I pulled the images up on my workstation, I saw that she had massive bilateral pulmonary emboli (i.e., large clots obstructing the normal flow of blood to both her lungs). She had enormous clots on both sides, and was surviving on less than 50% of her normal pulmonary arterial flow.

I immediately ran back to the CT scanner suite, started her on oxygen, contacted her family doctor (who ordered the test), arranged emergency ambulance transport to the nearest ER, and coordinated with the charge nurse at the ER so that they'd be ready to receive her as soon as she hit the door. One of my partners subsequently told me that given the seriousness of her condition, if she had gone home, she probably would have died.

I've included 3 representative images from her recent CT scan (as well as a fourth normal comparison image from a different patient). On these images, the normal pulmonary arteries are white (due to the injected x-ray "dye"), and the blood clots show up as dark grey. These are the largest pulmonary emboli I've seen in about 3 years, and the largest ever in someone who wasn't already in the hospital.

My adrenaline levels are just now starting to settle down.

Read more...

UCLA Panel Discussion: Yaron Brook, Daniel Pipes, and Wafa Sultan

Wow, I'd really love to see Wafa Sultan speak in this upcoming panel discussion:

Totalitarian Islam's Threat to the West

Who: Dr. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute; Dr. Wafa Sultan, outspoken critic of Islam and author of the forthcoming book "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster"

What: A panel discussion on the threat of Islamic totalitarianism and how to deal with it

Where: UCLA Campus: Moore 100, Los Angeles, CA

When: Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 7:00 PM

Admission is FREE.

Description: From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency--it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an "age of terror" and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory.

But is the conventional wisdom right?

A distinguished panel of Middle East experts will provide new and illuminating answers to the most important questions of our time: Is the West ready to concede victory so easily? Are the terrorists a fringe group of fanatics, or are they part of a much wider ideological movement? What threat do they pose to the West? What can the West do to ensure victory? Is peace possible?

While the experts will answer these complex questions from diverse points of view, they all agree on one thing: Islamic totalitarianism is a real threat, and the right response necessitates engaging in a principled, ideological battle to defend the West from the jihad declared against it.

Speakers' Biographies:

Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle-East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle-East issues. Dr. Brook has served in the Israeli Army and has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on hundreds of radio and TV programs, including FOX News (The O'Reilly Factor, Your World with Neil Cavuto, At Large with Geraldo Rivera), CNN's Talkback Live, CNBC's Closing Bell and On the Money, and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism.

Dr. Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. He taught history at the University of Chicago and at Harvard University, and lectured on policy and strategy at the Naval War College. He currently teaches at Pepperdine University. Dr. Pipes is the author of twelve books and numerous articles. He is a columnist for the New York Sun and he appears weekly in Israel's Jerusalem Post, Italy's L'Opinione, Spain's La Razón, and monthly in the Australian and Canada's Globe and Mail. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, is among the most accessed Internet sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Mr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O'Reilly Factor, The Today Show, the BBC and Al Jazeera.

Dr. Wafa Sultan is a secular Syrian-American writer and thinker, Dr.
Sultan is known for her participation in Middle East political debates, widely circulated Arabic essays and television appearances on Al Jazeera, CNN and Fox News. Dr. Sultan was shocked into secularism by the atrocities committed against innocent Syrian people by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1979, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor in front of her eyes at the University of Aleppo, where she was a medical student. On February 21, 2006, she appeared on Al Jazeera, where she scolded Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently and for not acknowledging the accomplishments of non-Muslim societies, including their greater freedom and capacity for producing wealth and technology. She named the Islamic threat to the West as "a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose." A video of her appearance, widely circulated on Web logs and through e-mail, has been viewed an estimated 12 million times. Her outspokenness has brought her both threats and praise. Dr. Sultan is currently working on a book to be called "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."

Read more...

Is the Hummer more environmentally friendly than the Prius?

Although I'm not an environmentalist, I found the following analysis quite entertaining:

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the "dead zone" around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

...The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius' battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist's nightmare.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn't end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce "nickel foam." From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce?

Wait, I haven't even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer -- the Prius's arch nemesis.

Through a study by CNW Marketing called "Dust to Dust," the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.

The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.

(Via /.)

Read more...

Top 15 Unintentionally Funny Comic Book Panels

Today, Paul sent me the link to these Top 15 Unintentionally Funny Comic Book Panels. They're almost all damn funny, but I nearly fell off my chair on reading the last.

Let no one ever accuse me of maturity in my sense of humor!

Read more...

Sarah Connor Chronicles

Paul e-mailed me this tidbit a few days ago. I thought it worth sharing.

While looking up the IMDB page for the actress who played the Spartan queen in "300" (Lena Headey), I saw that she's also going to be in the upcoming 2007 TV series, "Sarah Connor Chronicles", playing Sarah herself. The IMDB page says:

"Set after the events in Terminator 2 Sarah Connor and her son John, trying to stay under-the-radar from the government as they plot to destroy the computer network Skynet in hopes of preventing Armageddon."

As an interesting aside, one of the other main characters is "Cameron", played by Summer Glau (i.e., River from Firefly/Serenity).

Only two episodes are listed, so maybe this is a trial series or a mid-season replacement.

I'm a huge fan of the Terminator movies, albeit T2 far above the first and third. I liked Lena Headey in 300. Summer Glau is obviously awesome. So this show sounds very interesting.

Read more...

How College Kids Imagine the United States Government

Too damn funny:

How College Kids Imagine the United States Government

--Did you hear the news, Mr. President? The students at the University of Pittsfield are walking out of their classes, in protest over the war.

--(spits out coffee) Wha-- What did you say?

--Apparently, students are standing up in the middle of lectures and walking right out of the building.

--But students love lectures. If they're willing to give those up, they must really be serious about this peace thing! How did you hear about this protest?

--The White House hears about every protest, no matter how small.

--Oh, right, I remember.

--You haven't heard the half of it, Mr. President. The leader of the group says that if you don't stop the war today they're going to . . . to . . . I'm sorry, I can't say it out loud. It's just too terrifying.

--Say it, damn it! I'm the President!

--All right! If you don't stop the war . . . they're going to stop going to school for the remainder of the week.

--Send the troops home.

--But, Mr. President! Shouldn't we talk about this?

--Send the troops home.

Read more...

New Reader Seeking Discussion

This delightful post by Jennifer Janisch entitled Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead seems well worth some comment and discussion. (Please do it on "New Critics," not here in the NoodleFood comments.)

I remember in high school, my mom was pressing me to write an essay for The Fountainhead scholarship. I have always been a voracious reader and had accomplished some impressive literary feats in the past (I read Gone with the Wind at eight), but I've never, ever liked to read for any reason other than for the sheer pleasure and escape of reading. So the idea of reading an enormous and complex book like The Fountainhead for the purpose of writing an essay for a scholarship didn't really appeal to me at the time, and I told her it wasn't happening.

As I look back, I am so glad I stuck to my guns, because knowing how I am, forcing myself to read The Fountainhead would have surely ruined the book for me. The timing just wasn't right, nor was the reason for reading it. But when I moved to New York City exactly one year ago, something compelled me to go to the bookstore and buy it, and after reading a mere few pages, I was completely spellbound. I limited myself to one chapter a night. I savored every morsel.

I realized I had never read a book that challenged my political beliefs, my morals, my ethics, my philosophies, my views on humans and humanity, so completely. I realized we normally read books we know we'll enjoy, we know we'll agree with, we know will inspire us. This was different. Before I read The Fountainhead, I was dismissive of any policy or any philosophy that didn't have the well-being of the masses in mind, and although I remain a social liberal and a critic of free-market capitalism, Ayn Rand's arguments were the first that allowed me to truly see the dark side of my belief system, as well as the bright side of hers. It was truly terrifying, to be honest, to see embodied in characters like Ellsworth Toohey, the inherent corruption and ulterior motives behind socialism and sacrifice, and to find myself cheering for the self-interested and steadfast Howard Roark, who never dreamed of sacrificing himself for others and knew achieving his own happiness was the highest of moral virtures.

It is an interesting and titillating book, indeed, and as we all know, extremely controversial. Ever since I finished The Fountainhead, I've wanted to engage in discussion with both critics and proponents of Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism, as well as the broader issues of capitalism vs. socialism, and individualism vs. collectivism. I feel newcritics may be the appropriate avenue to do just that. If you feel so inclined to post your thoughts on the philosophy, the politics, or simply the book and characters themselves... Let the conversation begin.

The comments posted so far are less-than-delightful, so I really encourage folks to chime in!

Read more...

Seattle Schoolchildren Learning That Private Property Is Evil

Some Seattle schoolchildren are being taught the evils of private property and property rights by banning Legos. Here are some excerpts from this chilling (mostly pro-property rights) article:

According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."

They claimed as their role shaping the children's "social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity ... from a perspective of social justice."

So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months.

At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:

"A house is good because it is a community house."

"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."

"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."

By the way, this was at a private school, not a public school. The teachers explained their philosophy in great detail in their recent article, "Why We Banned Legos". Here is what the children naively believed about the concept of "ownership" before the Lego incident:

If I buy it, I own it

If I receive it as a gift, I own it

If I make it myself, I own it

If it has my name on it, I own it

If I own it, I make the rules about it

And after the "re-education", they learned the following:

Collectivity is a good thing

Personal expression matters

Shared power is a valued goal

Moderation and equal access to resources are things to strive for

These principles were then concretized into the following rules for Lego play:

All structures are public structures. Everyone can use all the Lego structures. But only the builder or people who have her or his permission are allowed to change a structure.

Lego people can be saved only by a "team" of kids, not by individuals.

All structures will be standard sizes.

As the teachers happily noted:

With these three agreements -- which distilled months of social justice exploration into a few simple tenets of community use of resources -- we returned the Legos to their place of honor in the classroom.

The school is the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. The two teachers who co-authored the article are Ann Pelo and Kendra Pelojoaquin. Ann Pelo's e-mail address is: <annpelo@msn.com>.

Read more...

Eugene Volokh on the Cancelled UCLA Debate

Eugene Volokh just posted a blog entry entitled "Who Should Pay for Security at Controversial University Events? on the canceled UCLA debate between Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute and Carl Braun of the Minutemen sponsored by the UCLA Objectivist club, LOGIC. He has a nice summary of the facts, then an analysis of the First Amendment issues. However, I was most interested in his discussion of the the basic moral issue:

3. But it seems to me that regardless of the First Amendment outcome, academic freedom principles should lead the university to pay all the security costs itself. It looks like L.O.G.I.C. will be able to pay for the private security; but many groups might not be able to, and even L.O.G.I.C. might not be able to pay if the expected counterprotest is large enough. Sometimes, the thugs' threatened disruption would get the event shut down, or at least moved off campus to a park.

So the question is: Should the university let the thugs drive debate on important and controversial issues off the university campus? I think the answer is that it should not.

I sympathize with the desire to save money that could be used for other academic purposes. I sympathize with the concern about violence (though I think it's to the university's credit that it will pay the great majority of the costs of deterring and containing the possible violence, rather than blocking the event or requiring student groups to pay for police protection).

Still, it seems to me most important that the university take a stand, even at some cost, in favor of protecting free speech and against those who are threatening to disrupt the speech. If the university doesn't do it, and the thugs win, that will just promote more thuggery in the future. Behave that gets rewarded gets repeated.

Recall also that, thanks to Chancellor Abrams' sound decision to provide police protection at UC expense, the debate now is over sums that are relatively modest for the university. But the sums are not modest for the groups involved, and may in fact lead to some events' being canceled. If $1000-2000 extra for the relatively rare event that requires a good deal of security is the price to be spent for defending free debate at the university against the goons, that seems to me a price the university should be willing to pay.

Read more...

Cryptographer Creams Psychics

This story is too funny. A little background: James "The Amazing" Randi has a brilliant, longstanding million-dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities -- whatever ability they choose, shown via any method they like, only requiring that all involved agree their method would demonstrate it under controlled circumstances. Why is it brilliant?

Many have tried, all have failed.

So a while back Randi revised the focus of the program toward challenging high-profile 'psychics' by name (maybe defending the honor would entice them the way a cool million doesn't?) and he is also now only considering applicants who have gotten some media attention as well as convinced some academic -- probably because the endless stream of crackpot losers he has examined is boring him to death. Okay, maybe it is really a matter of resources: the crackpot next door doesn't influence the culture like those who get media attention and confuse academics.

Anyway, today I saw this story talking about how Randi had set up a remote-viewing test and (to prove no cheating on his part) had published an enciphered clue as to what was in the box. Turns out a cryptographer easily broke his amateur cipher and was able to pass the test, beating out the psychics.

The moral of the story is actually a message Randi routinely gives to scientists, who are notoriously prone to being duped while testing paranormalists: if you are in waters where people often fool themselves and others, have a magician on staff dammit! Well, if you are in the realm of hiding information in plain sight, have a cryptographer on staff dammit!

Or at least consult someone who has some dealings with security. Even a moderately knowledgeable software engineer would have immediately recognized this as an important problem that has been studied hard by cryptographers. Randi could have written a detailed description and run it through some common and well-designed cryptographic hash function to produce a mathematical "fingerprint" which he could safely publish. Good hash functions are very chaotic and one-way, making it infeasible (read: essentially impossible) to use the fingerprint to figure out the original string as happened in this story. Then when the box is opened, he need only show his description matching the contents and the hash function generating the published fingerprint.

While I chuckle at the story, in all seriousness my hat is WAY off to James Randi and his long record of kicking butt and making the world a saner place. At the top of his list of achievements is his bringing about that stark fact which deflates so much silliness: many have tried, all have failed -- and on their own terms.

Read more...

NetFlix Friend

If you'd like to become a "friend" of mine on NetFlix, you can just click here. (You don't have to agree with my tastes in movies, of course!)

Read more...

John Lewis Rescheduled

It looks like John Lewis' GMU talk has been rescheduled:

On April 24th at 7:30pm in the JC Cinema the [College Republicans] will be hosting a lecture by Dr. John Lewis, Ph.D. Lewis is a history professor at Ashland University in Ohio. He will be discussing his article, No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism. This talk was previously scheduled to appear at Mason, but because of its controversial content its original sponsors were no longer able to sponsor it. We have decided to hold this talk because, as a club, we value discussion and debate, both internally among our own members, and externally, with others on campus. We also believe that Dr. Lewis' ideas for winning the war are of interest to our members and the larger Mason community. This talk is being sponsored by the GMU College Republicans, GMU Objectivist Club, and the Objectivist Standard. Please mark your calendars for this exciting event! It will be Tuesday, April 24th, 7:30pm in the JC Cinema!

The announcement can be found on Facebook. (Yup, I do have a Facebook account.)

Read more...

Artificial Migraine Aura

This visual effect inducer yields something very similar to my migraine auras. (Not while you're looking at the strobe, of course, but once you look away.) My auras don't move in quite that pattern, nor usually quite so strong, but the basic grainy flow of the visual field is often very much like that.

Since my migraine auras are mild forms of hallucination, the proper account of hallucination isn't some airy-fairy technical problem of philosophy for me!

Read more...

Casino Royale

Paul and I watched Casino Royale last night. It just came out on DVD. (I've minimized spoilers in my comments below.)

The plot made more sense to me this time, although I still think some more hint about the French Algerian was needed. (Since he wasn't ever seen, he still doesn't feel real to me.)

I love Daniel Craig as James Bond. However, I'm most in love with the portrayal of James Bond as internally conflicted: the sharp rationality and intense emotional control versus the bloody physical brutality of his killings. Both are required of him by his job -- and required simply to remain alive from moment to moment. Yet the conflict threatens his very person, i.e. his soul. That's new for Bond -- and it's very compelling to me.

However, I think the movie goes astray starting with the hospital scene. The introduction of the emotional pull of the romance muddies that sharply-drawn physical/rational/emotional conflict. It's not wholly unrelated, of course, but it's still a tangent. (It's as if the writers didn't quite know how to use that conflict for a dramatic climax, so they opted for the more predictable romantic betrayal.) The attraction in the romance also isn't well-justified: it's not clear me to why Bond would choose that woman over any other lovely smart woman, let alone so completely and unreservedly. (While the scene in the train shows her to be his equal, that's not enough for love.)

All in all though, I liked the movie even more than I did in the theater. And I'm excited about the new direction for the franchise.

Read more...

The Banana: Proof of God's Creation

A link to this 1-minute video proving "the genius of God's creation" via the analysis of a banana was posted to the comments by "rootie." It was just too good not to make into its very own NoodleFood post.



Update: I forgot to add that malaria, bubonic plague, and breast cancer are also remarkably well-suited to humans! Those delights must be due to our sinful nature though.

Read more...

OCON 2007 Early Registration

Thursday, also known as tomorrow for a few more hours, is the deadline for early registration for the 2007 OCON, to be held from July 6th to 15th in lovely Telluride, Colorado.

The program looks excellent. Obviously, I'm hugely excited about Leonard Peikoff's six lectures on "The DIM Hypothesis," as well as many of the other general lectures. As for optional courses, I generally choose them first by expected quality of content, then by topic, then by fun. Expected quality of content is based on the reputation of the speaker with me based on prior lectures I've heard, whether live or on tape. As for topic, I tend toward the more philosophical topics, for obvious reasons. As for fun, some lecturers are particularly delightful to see live, e.g. John Lewis, Robert Mayhew, Yaron Brook.

Here's what Paul and I are taking this year. We're totally overlapped, except that I'm opting for Robert Mayhew over Yaron Brook.

GROUP A

The Science of Selfishness by Craig Biddle

American Slavery, American Freedom by C. Bradley Thompson

GROUP B

Two, Three, Four and All That by Pat Corvini

Plato's Laws by Robert Mayhew (Diana)

The Corporation by Yaron Brook (Paul)

GROUP C

Atlas Shrugged as a Work of Philosophy by Greg Salmieri.

GROUP D

The Meaning of Victory: 1945 by John Lewis

I'm nearly certain that I'll order The Scientific Revolution by David Harriman and The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant (part 1 of 3): Kant's Theoretical Philosophy by Jason Rheins on CD. I just can't fit them into my schedule. My head would explode if I tried take more than three optional courses per session again.

Also, Property Rights in American History by Eric Daniels is sure to be a phenomenal course. However, I won't need it, since I'm in the middle of a full-year "History of Capitalism" course with Eric right now. Simply due to time alone, his OCON course will be a drop in the bucket compared to the two-and-half hours I've been enjoying every week for this academic year. (Yes, you should be turning green with envy! But remember, you can audit the course. It's a bargain, given what you're getting.)

Please post a note in the comments if you plan to attend OCON this year!

Read more...

Coverage of John Lewis' Cancelled GMU Talk

The cancellation of John Lewis' lecture at George Mason University has gotten some generally favorable press.

The AP carried a story: Professor's Invitation At GMU Pulled, Muslim Complaints

The Chronicle of Higher Education had a very good article with some hefty quotes from Dr. Lewis' excellent article "No Substitute for Victory," but the link will only be good for another day or so: Scholar Who Calls for War on Iran Loses a Speaking Gig at George Mason but May Get Another

Virginia's Daily Press published an op-ed that mentioned the incident, albeit stupidly: It Says a Lot

It's also been noted in the blogosphere. For example:

SCSU Scholars: Where are your papers, young student?

Jihad Watch: Dhimmitude at George Mason University

Read more...

Update on the Clemson Institute Summer Conference

Here's an update about the Clemson Institute Summer Conference Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism. (I originally blogged about it here.) In brief, the deadline for admission has been extended to March 19th, graduate students are now welcome to apply, and the schedule of classes has been posted.

New Information and Opportunities Available!

The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism had updated its website with details about the schedule for our upcoming summer conference, "Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism." Visit our website to view the full schedule of events during this exciting three-day conference.

The Clemson Institute has also opened admission to the conference to qualified graduate students. If you'd like to apply, simply download and fill out the application available on our website and return it via email by March 19. Undergraduates are also still eligible to apply until the new March 19 deadline.

Read more...

Reminder: Justice in War Debate Tomorrow

The debate between Yaron Brook (Ayn Rand Institute, just war theory critic) and Martin Cook (Air Force Academy Philosophy Professor, preeminent just war theorist) will be held tomorrow evening in Boulder. (This event is hosted by Boulder's Philosophy Department, not any campus club.)

What: "Justice in War: A Debate" with Dr. Martin Cook (US Air Force Academy) and Dr. Yaron Brook (Ayn Rand Institute)

When: Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 8:00 to 9:30 p.m.

Where: Wittemeyer Courtroom, Wolf Law Building University of Colorado, Boulder

America is often harshly criticized at home and abroad for its conduct in war, not just by "doves" hoping to restrain our military might but also by "hawks" seeking more vigorous military action. What does morality require of America in war?

Dr. Martin Cook will defend the "just war tradition" and examine its application to the world today, including to the war on terror. Dr. Martin Cook is a Professor of Philosophy and Deputy Department Head at the United States Air Force Academy.

Dr. Yaron Brook will argue that the "just war tradition" is an immoral, self-sacrificial restriction on the military for the sake of America's enemies and their supporters. Dr. Yaron Brook is the President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

This debate is free and open to the public. For more information, the Think! web site. All "Think!" events are sponsored by the Center for Values and Social Policy in the Philosophy Department of the University of Colorado at Boulder and funded through the generosity of The Collins Foundation.

Read more...

Some Comments on 300

Paul and I saw 300 tonight. I was seriously disappointed.

I was most disappointed aesthetically. The movie failed to connect its loudly-proclaimed broad abstractions to its concretes, mostly notably in the case of the ideas of reason and freedom. Consider a few examples.

*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***


*** WARNING SPOILER ALERT ***

First, Leonidas was supposed to be uncompromising. He wasn't swayed by the appeals of Xerxes (and the deformed Ephialtes) to be reasonable by submitting to Persian rule. Yet he compromised from the very start, not just by submitting to the mystical demands of the Ephors, but then by circumventing their demands without directly challenging them. The fact that he did so begrudgingly, as a necessity of Spartan political life, shows him to be open to compromise in the name of necessity. So why not compromise with the Persians too? Just because, I guess.

Second, the Spartans were repeatedly said to be superb warriors, not just for their strength, courage and skills, but also for their use of reason. However, the training of the youth was not just purely physical, but also mostly the endurance of pains like freezing cold human brutality. Even worse, the training was positively irrational, e.g. the young men had to steal food to live, then would be brutally punished if caught. Unsurprisingly then, the Spartans showed basically no ingenuity in battle in the movie. They relied solely on their strength, skill, discipline, courage, and even indifference to life -- not on any clever tactics. In contrast, Herodotus recounts that the Spartans would often fake retreats, then turn back en masse to slaughter unwary Persians. It's significant that that bit of actual history was omitted from the movie, I think.

Third, Sparta was clearly portrayed in the movie as a fundamentally totalitarian society. (That's certainly accurate.) Yet those concrete facts were never reconciled with all the Spartan talk about the value of freedom. So really, what made life under Persian rule so much worse than life under Spartan rule? That totalitarianism was also grossly inconsistent with Sparta's supposed ideal of reason. Unsurprisingly, no rationale was ever offered for Sparta's overwhelmingly militaristic culture: it was just supposed to be obviously superior to a city in which the army is composed of reservist potters and sculptors.

Fourth, and perhaps most galling of all, the final heroism of the Spartans was portrayed as nothing short of senseless adherence to duty. The Spartans were forbidden from retreating in battle. They could only stay, fight, and die -- and that's what they did. To retreat was portrayed as obvious cowardice -- yet the movie Spartans had absolutely no rational reason to stand their ground. As recounted by Herodotus, the Spartans stayed for a very rational reason: the unprepared Greek city-states to the south desperately needed time to muster their forces. The Spartans fought at the pass after the betrayal to hold off the Persians for a bit longer. Unlike in the movie, where all were slaughtered immediately, the real Spartans achieved that purpose with their deaths.

These failures to connect the abstract ideals of the movie with its concretes was the reason why, I think, the dialogue of the movie often seemed like a disconnected series of stirring but empty one-liners. It was, to put it in terms of Leonard Peikoff's "DIM Hypothesis," very much M1. It aspired to be more than the writers could muster, I think.

That's not to say that I didn't like some of the elements of the movie. I very much enjoyed the characters of Leonidas and Gorgo. Plus, those nearly-naked Spartan soldiers were mighty easy on the eyes. I decided not to focus on those better elements of the movie not just because I regard them as inessential, but also because I've already seen much praise for the movie, including from Objectivists.

Overall, I thought the movie a serious failure. That was disappointing.

Read more...

Jesus Camp and Friends of God

The documentary Jesus Camp is now available on DVD. (It's now at the top of my NetFlix queue.)

John Stark just forwarded me this scary clip from it. In it, I learned that PowerPoint problems are the work of the Devil. (Seriously. These nutters prayed over their electronic equipment, including in tongues.) I was more seriously disturbed to see a young child -- probably about seven years old -- speaking shamefully of his occasional lack of belief in the Bible.

I wasn't at all surprised to see all the pro-Bush political activism from the pulpit, particularly from Ted Haggard. I suspect that his gay-sex-and-drugs scandal has put something of a damper on Christian evangelical designs for political change in America. They need to clean their own house before they can continue to self-righteously clean ours.

The second clip was from the documentary Friends of God. It begins with a traveling minister preaching against evolution and for creation. "The Bible is the History Book of the Universe." He is teaching about "the authority of Scripture." We should trust God, not the scientist, he warns. Yet the rank-and-file were quite determined to cloak themselves in the veneer of "creation science." (I guess they don't trust God and His Scripture that much!)

They are right about one thing: The Bible demands that we shut down all questions, all doubts, all thought. We lowly humans ought do nothing more than believe and obey.

Read more...

Ask Calvin's Dad

This is a great collection of fatherly wisdom from the dad in Calvin and Hobbes.

Read more...

A TOS Suprise!

Craig Biddle just sent out the table of contents for the upcoming Spring 2007 issue of The Objective Standard. Here it is:

• 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 Mayhew
  
• "Induction and Experimental Method" by David Harriman
  
• "Egoism Explained: A Review of Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist" by Diana Hsieh

Wow, fancy that last article! What a surprise! (If this post is the first you've heard of it, you're not alone. I told just a very few people about it, even once publication was certain. That was precisely so that I could enjoy foisting this little surprise on my NoodleFood readers.)

Here's how Craig Biddle describes my review in his editor's note:

Finally, in "Egoism Explained," Diana Hsieh reviews Tara Smith's latest book, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, and finds it to be a welcome addition to the existing literature on the Objectivist ethics--and a sizable challenge for critics of egoism.

That's exactly right. In editing my review, Craig did rightly excise some substantial discussions of side-issues. I'll post those here on NoodleFood, when I have a moment to spruce them up a bit.

Also, as a delightful coincidence, Tara Smith's excellent book will soon be available as a $25.99 paperback, not just as a $63.80 hardcover. That cheaper paperback is available for pre-order from Amazon; it's scheduled for release on April 30th.

The article will not be freely available on the web. So regarding subscriptions, the fine Mr. Biddle notes:

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.

All in all, I'm really quite honored to be included in an issue of such sure-to-be fabulous articles.

Read more...

Hannah Krening: An Evening of Romantic Piano Music

I know Hannah Krening from Front Range Objectivism's 1FROG discussion group, so I'm particularly looking foward to hearing her play for the first time.

Hannah Krening, classical pianist, will present an evening of Romantic piano music on two Saturdays in March in Denver.

On March 10th she will perform at Evanston United Methodist Church, 2122 S. Lafayette Street (at Evans, just west of DU) at 7:00 pm. A donation of $10 per person will be requested at the door.

On March 17th, Ms. Krening will perform at Chris Finger Pianos, 102 Second Avenue, in Niwot (near Boulder), also at 7:00 pm. Tickets are $10 in advance, $12 at the door. Advance tickets are available at Chris Finger Pianos or e-mail dhkren@indra.com for more information.

Ms. Krening holds a Bachelor of Music and a Masters degree in Piano Performance. She has taught privately, in college and other school settings, and is a MTNA Nationally Certified Music Teacher. She has performed as a symphony pianist and as a soloist in various locations throughout the United States.

The program consists of: Beethoven: Sonata, Op. 27, no. 2, Brahms: Klavierstcke, Op. 119, Schubert: Sonata in A, Op. 120, and Mendelssohn: Variations Srieuses, Op. 54.

Portions of the proceeds from the Niwot recital will benefit FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine).

For more information, please contact: Hannah Krening at (303)681-2122 or dhkren@indra.com. A flyer for this event is available here.

You can find out more about FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) at www.WeStandFIRM.org. The site is not yet officially launched, although it's looking pretty good. (I'm the webmaster, so please let me know if you notice any problems with it.) I'll post the official announcement when the doors are officially opened.

Read more...

Daylight Savings Time Tester

This convenient little JavaScript app will tell you whether your computer is ready for the obscenely early new Daylight Savings time. (Via GeekPress.)

Read more...

An Inconvenient Parallel

I watched Gore's award-winning An Inconvenient Truth the other night with some friends.

Sigh. Gore's movie is without a doubt the strongest, slickest, most utterly dishonest piece of propaganda I have ever seen. So much so that I was getting depressed because any regular person watching it pretty much should react with something on the order of, "If even half of what Gore says is right, we're all doomed and have to do something NOW!" It has already won Academy awards, it seems set to earn him an honorary doctorate and a Nobel peace prize, and he might even parlay all this rock-star visibility and seeming authority/vision into a winning Presidential run or perhaps some kind of UN Global Environmental Czar position.

In the ensuing discussion, one fellow observed that while he could see factual and emotional manipulation, he was "less willing to throw away Gore's data" than I am, and that the badness he could see "isn't enough ... to say there is no baby in the bathwater." While I wasn't claiming Gore gets nothing right, I am indeed quick to find fault and slow to accept whatever truths he offers. As I explained:

That's reasonable -- you haven't built up as much inductive data on the deep-green crowd, so I wouldn't expect the same attitude in you. In my case, after seeing many and varied environmentalist scares exhibit spectacular errors and outright dishonesty aimed at harming the life and happiness of mankind (as well as an occasional bit of confirming candor), it is difficult not to draw the conclusion of a rotten philosophic driver. DDT, overpopulation, resources, nuclear energy, recycling, genetically-modified crops, acid rain, global warming, on and on. Consider how Creationists grope for the respect and power of the mantle of science ("scientific creationism", "intelligent design") to push their bad ideas: unlike with real science, they are not interested in discovering the truth, just in rationalizing the "truth" they already believe. Deep greens look exactly the same to me at this point: straining to don the mantle of science to defend and spread their religious convictions, rather than participating in science to discover the truth. For any religious rationalizer, the (religious) ends justify the (dishonest and damaging) means -- and you will find that in spades in both movements.

This suggests a way to understand my emotional stance toward Gore, and my cognitive bias away from him in favor of his critics: picture slick Creationist presentations. They will include some solid logic and facts, but also exaggeration, distortion, error, and even intellectually dishonest material. And having identified something as Creationist in nature, you know that the entire project is not reason looking for the truth, but religious dogma looking for a rationalization -- any rationalization, factual or not, logical or not, honest or not, destructive or not. Sure, the better proselytizers tend toward the good poles, but no matter where they land in the spectrum, they are still on a mission of rationalization and not of reason. So if you consider the cause of your (hopefully!) differing levels of eagerness to accept data and conclusions from "scientific" Creationists as against other scientists, you will see the cause of my analogous stance regarding the "scientific" Greens as against other scientists.

Poking around before the viewing for someone critically commenting at length on Gore's presentation, I found CEI Fellow Marlo Lewis' blow-by-blow commentary on the movie/book. It is pretty good and matches the above expectations. The biggest complaint I have about it is also one of its virtues: it is exhaustive to avoid the charge of cherry-picking, but that comprehensiveness also tends to pull focus away from fundamentals.

On a promising note, a documentary that apparently runs strongly against the alarmists' scientific "consensus" is set to air this Thursday on UK TV (as well as on the web): The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Speaking of "consensus," one of Gore's bigger and more insidious points concerns how he and the debate-is-over crowd get a lot of mileage (up to this day) out of citing an extensive survey showing essentially NO peer-reviewed scientific dissent from the human-caused-GW position, as against close to half of non-peer-reviewed articles which do dissent. It is his primary tool to poison the well against skeptics -- in his movie, on Oprah, in articles and interviews. And we hear similar intimidating claims from many quarters. Gore's slide certainly caught my attention when we were watching his movie. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that (way back in 2005) someone tried to replicate that study and only falsified it. This researcher's letter to Science to disclose the falsification and urge Science's retraction of the original study to limit its damage was strangely rejected. His follow-up letter cited the original study's large and unhelpful influence, and also discussed interesting surveys of climatologists which likewise contradicted the debate-is-over consensus position.

Read more...

Mark Skousen on Ayn Rand

I haven't even had time to read this Christian Science Monitor essay on the 50th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged by Christian economist Mark Skousen, but I thought I should link to it sooner rather than later, as I'd love to see some good letters to the editor written in reply!

Read more...

U of M Talk by Adam Mosoff

I've been studying the history of property rights in my excellent "History of Capitalism" course with Eric Daniels, so I'd definitely say that this topic is more interesting than I once thought. Across countless issues, the history of the American political-legal system shows the disastrous consequences of the failure to provide a solid intellectual base for liberty, rights, and capitalism. That's a lesson that still desperately needs learning today, including amongst Objectivists.

"The Rise and Fall of Property in America"

Who: Professor Adam Mossoff, Michigan State University College of Law

What: A talk on the rise and fall of property rights in America, discussing the intellectual history of the right to property and how early twentieth-century Progressives destroyed property rights.

When: Wednesday, March 14 at 7:30pm

Where: University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Angell Hall Auditorium D

The public and media are invited. Admission is FREE.

Summary: What happened to property rights in America? Our laws today do little to protect property owners from either the dictator abroad or the bureaucrat in D.C. How did this come to pass in a country founded on the principle that all men have the inalienable right to life, liberty and property? In this lecture, Professor Adam Mossoff explains the rise and fall of property rights in America. He first discusses the intellectual history of the right to property and how the Founding Fathers turned 17th-century theory into 18th-century practice. He then explains how early twentieth-century Progressives destroyed property in order to remove this fundamental obstacle to the implementation of their socialist programs.

The effects of this assault are still felt today, which he illustrates with examples from famous and recent court cases in which judges disintegrated basic property protections, such as the Supreme Court's recent decision in Kelo v. City of New London. Ultimately, the lesson to be learned is that a renaissance in the protection of property rights will not occur through politics or law, but rather in the proper justification of property as a fundamental moral right.

For more information on this talk, please email sardone@umich.edu.

Update: The poster is here.

Read more...

MI-5

Paul and I have been watching the fourth season of one of our favorite dramas: MI-5. I thought I'd say a few good words about it, particularly since I don't think I've mentioned it before.

It's a gripping British spy drama, better than ever this season, I think. It's fundamentally realistic in its characters and plots, never crazy-weird like Alias was. So the drama isn't contrived. Yet it's not naturalistic like Battlestar Galactica: its heroes are not sullied every few episodes in the name of "gritty realism." With rare exception, the agents are genuinely and consistently heroic. (I say that even though I often have substantial philosophic disagreements with their actions and policies.) The drama often revolves around the difficult choices faced by the MI-5 agents, not external dangers, car-chase action, or shocking horrors. Every episode is thoughtful in a way almost unheard-of with American television.

If you haven't seen the show yet, you can surely find it on NetFlix. It's also available on Amazon: Season One, Season Two, Season Three, Season Four. They are short seasons, but long episodes.

Read more...

It's Tiny, It's Blue, and It's Fabulous!

My new iPod arrived today. It's the 4 GB blue iPod Nano. It's fantastically sleek. (It even arrived in its own fabulously tiny little box!)

Since the death-by-high-velocity-impact-with-concrete of my 4th Generation iPod some ages ago, I've been struggling to listen to lectures and audiobooks on my screenless iPod Shuffle. Although the Shuffle has been delightfully sturdy, I finally grew tired of being unable to navigate intelligently through its files. The problem was that I couldn't use it to listen to more than one lecture or book at a time, as it was all too easy to lose my place in blind confusion if I tried to listen to more than just one file at a time. Since I'm always listening to at least one book or lecture at a time, I couldn't use it to listen to music except on rare occasion. That was frustrating.

I'll probably still use my Shuffle for its original purpose of exercise, particularly since it is so sturdy. Yes, I do mostly listen to books and lectures while I run, not music. I'm just that geeky -- or something. (Since Paul also often listens to lectures while he runs, we often joke about "running with Leonard" or "running with Tara" or "running with Yaron." I know, I know, it's silly.)

More importantly, I've started running again! (I stopped with Paul sprained his ankle in Los Angeles last fall.) Even though I'm in good shape from all my other exercise, it'll take me a few weeks to get back to the point of comfortably running six miles. If my joints can handle it, I'd like to run longer distances.

Okay, enough of that ramble. It's time to play with my Nano some more.

Read more...

Celebrate Love!

I am reposting this announcement in memory of Bob Zinser, who thought it hysterically funny when he first read it. It was some random bit of non-commercial spam I received some years ago. I'm posting it a bit early to give everyone time to prepare.

Every 14th of February you get the chance to display your fondness for your wife or girlfriend by showering her with gifts, flowers, dinner, shows and any other baubles that women find romantic.

Secret...guys feel left out. That's right...left out. There's no special holiday for the ladies to show their appreciation for the men in their life. Men as a whole are either too proud or just too embarrassed to admit it. Which is why a new holiday has been created.

March 20th is now officially "Steak & Blowjob Day."

Simple, effective and self-explanatory...this holiday has been created so your ladies can have a day to show your man just how much you love him. No cards, no flowers, no special nights on the town-the name of the holiday explains it all...just a steak and a BJ. That's it.

This twin pairing of Valentine's Day and Steak & Blowjob Day will usher in a new age of love as men everywhere will try THAT much harder in February to ensure a more memorable March! It's like perpetual love machine.

The word is already spreading, but as with any new idea, it needs a little push to start the ball rolling. So spread the word, and help bring love and peace to this crazy world.

Oh, and just remember ladies, this upcoming holiday isn't "Please Your Man Day." It's "Steak and Blowjob Day." So if he wants chicken and intercourse 15 days from now, you must refuse. Words are not made of rubber!

Read more...

Five Year Blogiversary

I have been blogging for five years as of today: My first blog posts were on March 4th, 2002. I'm amazed that I've been blogging for so long -- and that so much has changed. (Not counting this post, I've posted 2015 entries. That's an average of 403 per year.)

I should have baked myself a cake or something; instead, I'm bringing yummy chickens to roast for the pot-luck dinner after our bridge lesson. (Have I mentioned that Paul and I have taken up bridge? It's the most interesting -- and most difficult -- card game ever. We've been taking private lessons with three other couples. We'll be interested in playing bridge at OCON, provided that we can find the time.)

In any case, five years!!!

Read more...

Today’s Quiz

Can you name all 50 states in 10 minutes? Click here to start the clock. (I got 48/50.)

Read more...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Have you pre-ordered your copy of the forthcoming-on-July-21st Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows yet? (I have, of course!)

For those who don't know, I wrote an pretty decent essay on self-deception for the anthology Harry Potter and Philosophy.

Read more...

Science vs. Faith

This flowchart pretty much explains it all. (Via Found On The Web.)

Read more...

Jesus Dead and Buried

I must admit, given all the reading I've done on the historical Jesus and the history of early Christianity of late, I'm rather fascinated by the recent claim that the tomb of Jesus -- with his bones inside -- has been identified. So little is known about the historical Jesus that I'm highly skeptical that Jesus and his family could be positively identified. Perhaps physical evidence of a crucifixion might be apparent with Jesus and perhaps the bones could be dated to within the right time period -- but could anything definitively identify any of these people as the characters from the Gospels? (The Gospels themselves aren't even reliable historical documents!)

Read more...

Modern Stonehenge

This video is amazing: an ingenious construction worker figures out how to build Stonehenge-like structures by very primitive techniques. (Via GeekPress.com and Howard Roerig.)

Read more...