Problems With Maine's Socialized Medical System

The state of Maine has also attempted to provide "universal coverage" for its residents for many years, with predictably poor results. According to this recent NY Times article, instead of saving money, the program costs continue to explode, and the state officials are considering what sort of cutbacks to implement. Rationing is just one short step away.

Interestingly enough, one of the supporters of the plan is quite explicit about the central problem. She states, "This program needs healthy people who don't get subsidized so it can prosper." In other words, it needs a massive forced redistribution of wealth from one group of citizens to pay for the health care of another group of citizens who otherwise couldn't pay for it themselves.

Yet for some reason, supporters of "universal health care" refuse to call these systems by their real name -- "socialized medicine"! (Via Jason Spears.)

(Also crossposted to the FIRM weblog.)

Read more...

More from the Archimedes Palimpsest

WOW: Yet another ancient text has been found buried in the Archimedes Palimpsest. This time, it appears to be a commentary on Aristotle's Categories by Alexander of Aphrodisias!

Text reveals more ancient secrets
By Rebecca Morelle
Science reporter, BBC News

Experts are "lost for words" to have found that a medieval prayer book has yielded yet another key ancient text buried within its parchment. Works by mathematician Archimedes and the politician Hyperides had already been found buried within the book, known as the Archimedes Palimpsest. But now advanced imaging technology has revealed a third text - a commentary on the philosopher Aristotle. Project director William Noel called it a "sensational find".

The prayer book was written in the 13th Century by a scribe called John Myronas. But instead of using fresh parchment for his work, he employed pages from five existing books. Dr Noel, curator of manuscripts at the US-based Walters Art Museum and a co-author of a forthcoming book on the Archimedes Palimpsest, said: "It's a rather brutal process, but it means you can reuse parchment if you are short of it. You take books off shelves, you scrub off the text, you cut them up and you make a new book."

In 1906 it came to light that one of the books recycled to form the medieval manuscript contained a unique work by Archimedes. And in 2002, modern imaging technology not only provided a clearer view of this famous mathematician's words, but it also revealed another text - the only known manuscript of Hyperides, an Athenian politician from the 4th Century BC.

"At this point you start thinking striking one palimpsest is gold, and striking two is utterly astonishing. But then something even more extraordinary happened," Dr Noel told the BBC News website. One of the recycled books was proving extremely difficult to read, explained Roger Easton, a professor of imaging science at Rochester Institute of Technology, US. "We were using a technique called multispectral imaging," he said. This digital imaging technique uses photographs taken at different wavelengths to enhance particular characteristics of the imaged area.

Subtle adjustments of this method, explained Professor Easton, suddenly enabled these hidden words to be revealed. "Even though I couldn't read Ancient Greek, just the fact that I could see the words gave me shivers," he said.

Foundations of logic

An international team of experts began to scrutinize the ancient words, explained Reviel Netz, professor of ancient science at Stanford University, US, and another co-author of the palimpsest book. A series of clues, such as spotting a key name in the margin, led the team to its conclusion. "The philosophical passage in the Archimedes Palimpsest is now definitely identified as a relatively early commentary to Aristotle's Categories," said Professor Netz. He said that Aristotle's Categories had served as the foundation for the study of logic throughout western history.

Further study has revealed the most likely author of this unique commentary is Alexander of Aphrodisias, Professor Robert Sharples from University College London, UK, told BBC News. If this is the case, he said, "it gives us part of a commentary previously supposed lost by the most important of those ancient commentators on Aristotle".

A provisional translation of the commentary is currently being undertaken. It reveals a debate on some aspects of Aristotle's theory of classification, such as: if the term "footed" is used for animals, can it be used to classify anything else, such as a bed?

The passage reads:

For as "foot" is ambiguous when applied to an animal and to a bed, so are "with feet" and "without feet". So by "in species" here [Aristotle] is saying "in formula". For if it ever happens that the same name indicates the differentiae of genera that are different and not subordinate one to the other, they are at any rate not the same in formula.

Dr Noel said: "There is no more important philosopher in the world than Aristotle. To have early views in the 2nd and 3rd Century AD of Aristotle's Categories is just fantastic. We have one book that contains three texts from the ancient world that are absolutely central to our understanding of mathematics, politics and now philosophy," he said. He added: "I am at a loss for words at what this book has turned out to be. To make these discoveries in the 21st Century is frankly nutty - it is just so exciting."

WOWEEEEE! This discovery is really exciting!

Read more...

More Virtues of Capitalism

One of the virtues of capitalism is that it provides a wide variety of services for all sectors of the market. From "You Might Be A Redneck If":

You might be a redneck if your wife is quoted in the local paper saying the following,

Read more...

Greek Civilization

Ancient Greek civilization was one of the greatest in history. But I'm not so sure about some elements of modern Greek civilization.

Read more...

Leiter on Churchill

Yesterday, a professor in Boulder's philosophy department forwarded this post by Brain Leiter minimizing and excusing Ward Churchill's dishonesty to the department's "disscuss" list. I was floored by Leiter's remarks. Here's what I wrote in reply:

Brian Leiter approvingly quoted someone who wrote: "Churchill is guilty of occasionally shoddy scholarship and the dubious practice of ghostwriting, and perhaps even more."

The "dubious practice of ghostwriting"?!? That has got to be joke. (Yeah, I know it's not.)

By his own admission, Churchill published his papers under the names of others. As if that's not bad enough, he then cited those papers as independent sources to corroborate false legal and historical claims. That's not some kind of mistake or oversight. It's not merely dubious: it's twice-baked academic fraud. Contra Leiter, it's very serious.

A graduate student would surely be kicked out of the program for ghostwriting papers for other students. Fabricating sources would be a serious offense. So why is that behavior excusable in a professor?

If academic freedom is understood as granting professors freedom to engage in the same kinds of dishonesty for which students are flunked and/or expelled, then academic freedom won't be around much longer.

As for the rest of the blog post, it's not consistent with what I've read in the various CU reports on Churchill. See:

http://www.colorado.edu/.../report.html

http://www.colorado.edu/.../WardChurchillReport.pdf

http://www.colorado.edu/.../ChurchillStandingCmteReport.pdf

Augh. I don't understand how academics can punish plagiarism and cheating in their students while excusing Ward Churchill. Yet they do.

Read more...

Infuriated Socialists

A few days ago, Paul published this letter to the editor in the Denver Post:

Health care is not a right, and it is not the proper role of government to provide health care for all citizens. Instead, this should be left to the free market. It is precisely the attempts of the governments of countries like Canada (or states like Tennessee) to attempt to mandate universal coverage which have led to the rationing and waiting lists for vital medical services. Similar problems are already starting to develop in the Massachusetts plan as well. Any plan of government-mandated "universal coverage" is nothing more than socialized medicine, and would be a disaster for Colorado.

Paul S. Hsieh, M.D., Sedalia

In response, Denver Post staff columnist Jim Spencer attacked Paul (without identifying him by name) in his column "Reforming the health of our care":

The craziest letter to the editor that I've read in some time came from a physician who claimed that Coloradans have no right to health care.

Seems the guy not only forgot his Hippocratic oath but also the law.

If you're sick enough or badly injured, they have to treat you at the emergency room regardless of your ability to pay.

The doctor aimed his editorial rant against socialized medicine. But he wrote it because a state blue-ribbon commission is now cobbling together a plan for medical treatment and prescription drugs for Coloradans.

The column then discusses the supposedly noble work of the 208 Commission in determining the proper "private/public mix in the provision of health care."

I'm tickled pink to see Paul causing such a stir. It shows the power that physicians have when they speak out against socialized medicine.

For more information about the fight against socialized medicine in Colorado, visit FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. For Paul's more detailed case against socialized medicine in Colorado, read Socialized Medicine in Colorado - An Open Letter to Colorado Physicians.

Read more...

Stand Up for Reason

Richard Wills, whom I know from the "1FROG" discussion group of Front Range Objectivism posted the following as a comment on my post on Jesus Camp and Friends of God a while back. I thought it was way too fantastic for just a comment, so with Richard's permission, I'm posting it as its own blog post.

When I see blank-eyed God-squaders destroying children's minds by preaching blind obedience, and destroying their self-esteem by teaching them to cower, I'm reminded of the old hymn, "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus." The opening lines go:

Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
Ye soldiers of the cross;
Lift high His royal banner,
It must not suffer loss.

(See http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh514.sht for complete original lyrics and music.)

As an adolescent forced to go to church, I'd listen to the congregation singing this hymn and imagine they were singing "Suck Up to Jesus" instead. A religious service, after all, is nothing more than an exercise in sucking up to God.

Years later, I came up with my own lyrics for this hymn, imagining them sung by the faithful flock of the little Congregational church I attended near Boston. These are the words they would sing, that is, if they were honest about the meaning of their worship (see first three verses, below). Of course, if they were fully honest about their religion, they'd repudiate it entirely (see remaining six verses).

STAND UP FOR REASON

Stand up, stand up for Jesus,
This is our battle cry.
All ye who don't believe us
In Hell will surely fry.
To dogma we bow gladly;
To reason we don't bend.
The truth does not concern us;
We'd rather just pretend.

Kiss up, kiss up to Jesus,
Imaginary boss.
Oh, Great Hallucination,
Without you we are lost.
Our self-respect goes down with us
When we get on our knees.
But if we really grovel,
Salvation is a breeze.

Suck up, suck up to Jesus,
Imaginary friend.
It's party-time at your place
After our lives end.
To reach your cosmic Disneyland,
We'll genuflect and cower;
We'll kiss your ass forever,
Pretending you'll save ours.

But now I've done some thinking
About this savior-dude,
And after due reflection,
Here is what I conclude:
This mindless little carpenter
Was mentally unglued,
And thanks to his religion
Humanity got screwed.

I live my life for me now;
This is my sacred right.
I scorn all gods and masters;
On mankind they're a blight.
I'll raise the torch of reason,
Our one and only hope,
Until the cross of Jesus
Goes up in holy smoke.

Beware of true believers
Who try to suck us in --
Snake-oil hawkers selling
Imaginary sin.
They're dying to convert us
By sword or by the pen,
But if we fall for their lies,
We're suckers born again.

They have the nerve to tell us
We're sinful from our birth.
Their God is cruel and jealous,
Disdainful of our worth.
A pompous little potentate,
He's peevish, he's perverse.
Down with cosmic tyrants;
We have enough on Earth.

Now, pride and self-reliance
Are virtues to admire.
Be noble and defiant;
Live life as you desire.
The heaven that you seek is here;
It's well within your reach.
You hold it in your own hands
And need not God beseech.

May humans thrive forever --
Man, woman, girl and boy.
Our noblest endeavor
Is living life with joy.
And so with reason's counsel,
Stand up and go forth --
Claim your glorious birthright:
This life, this time, this Earth!

Ahhhh...man!

Read more...

Police Interrogations

A good police interrogation is a skillful use of applied psychology:

There are "Law & Order" addicts everywhere who think they could get a perp to confess. A little glaring, some getting in the guy's face, a revelation that his fingerprints are all over the murder weapon and voila! He's recounting his crime. In real life, police interrogation requires more than confidence and creativity (although those qualities do help) -- interrogators are highly trained in the psychological tactics of social influence.

Here's how it's done.

Read more...

How (Not) to Use PowerPoint

This is both a PowerPoint presentation and a self-referential comedy routine at the same time.

Read more...

Drive

I wrote this note more quickly than I would have liked, but I thought it better to post this than nothing at all.

For all FireFly fans, Nathan Fillion is starring in a new drama: Drive. Tim Minnear -- long time associate of Joss Whedon's -- is writing, directing, whatevering.

I've watched the first two episodes. It's really good so far. The writing is excellent. The characters are interesting. Most of all, the story is gripping, dramatic, and ingenious. (It's also a real pleasure to see Fillion in action again. Particularly with Minnear writing, he's definitely got something of that fabulous "Mal" feel.)

Three hour-long episodes have aired already. I strongly recommend against skipping those, as the two I've seen so far include tons of important backstory. However, you can buy those first three episodes on iTunes for just $2 each.

It's on Mondays at 8 pm. (That might be eastern time. Paul and I tivo, so we pay no attention to air date/time.)

Read more...

A Geography Puzzle

This was from the April Fool's Day edition of "NPR Sunday Puzzle".

Take the names of two U.S. States, mix them all together, then rearrange the letters to form the names of two other U.S. States. What states are these?

Click here for the answer. (Please don't post the answer in the comments.)

Read more...

God Versus Satan

How many people is God recorded to have killed in the Scriptures? Definite numbers aren't always given, e.g. for the Flood or for the killing of the firstborn sons in Egypt. However, some thoughtful blogger counted up the available numbers of dead. The result? God killed 2,270,365 people. By way of comparison, Satan apparently only killed 10 people.

Here's my favorite comment in reply:

You will rightfully burn in the realm of nothingess forever when you die you silly fool; unless you get out of that shallow paradox you think you're so smart in and start believing in the One and Only God that created you and gave you a choice to acceot It or deny It in the fist place. And if you deny It, you will be destroyed by your own making. All Satan did was feed you many lies and prove you are an obvious sucker that has bought into this shallow thinking. Lies and people kill people, not God, not guns. Suckers like you do deserve death. But you can also save yourself by believing in Who Jesus said He was. I feel sorry for your shallow, tainted brain.

Notice the total absent of argument, coupled with the threats of damnation. That's the fallacy of ad baculum. That fallacy is fundamental to Christian faith: Believe in Jesus... or you will be thrown into the lake of fire for eternal torment.

Read more...

Two Recommendations

Two very strong recommendations from Paul and me:

The first season of The Unit. This show (with Dennis Haysbert and Scott Foley) focuses on top-secret Special Forces group and their wives. Dramatic stories. Real heroes. Fabulous acting. Amazing writing. Highly recommended. You must start with the first season: NetFlix or Amazon.

The HBO movie Something the Lord Made. The gripping story of the two men who broke the taboo against heart surgery to repair the defective hearts of "blue babies." I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. (The title is not any kind of endorsement of religion. In fact, the movie is openly anti-religious.) NetFlix or Amazon.

Read more...

Fluid Christmas Tree

Funny, Paul didn't take me seriously when I told him that I wanted a ferrofluid Christmas tree this year. (Check out the video.)

Read more...

Crazies on College

Under the subheading "The Killer," Victor Davis Hanson tells of his completely crazy-scary roommate in college in 1971. The UC Santa Cruz administration failed to do anything about him -- until "he shot flaming arrows off the dorm roof at students" (!!). Tolerance for that kind of obvious danger is just mind-boggling. (Professors, even if deeply concerned about a student, have little power to do anything.)

Read more...

Piano Kitty

Unlike modern composers, this piano-playing cat has a darn good excuse for his atonal playing. He's not supposed to be a rational creature!

Read more...

Useless Cat Sale

Heh: one useless cat indeed. (I also like that site's collection of Weird and Bad Art.)

Read more...

How To Lose Your California Medical License

In the most recent issue of the California Medical Board quarterly newsletter, they list a number of ways you can lose your medical license due to "unprofessional conduct". Some of the choicer examples include:

A physician became angry with his accountant and hired a hit man to murder him. At the time the undercover police officer consummated the deal, the physician had a change of heart and decided he merely wanted the officer to break the accountant's legs.

A physician under peer review investigation by a hospital surreptitiously (or so he thought) wandered around the hospital parking lot keying the cars of hospital administrators.

Another surgeon graciously offered his services as an assistant during his wife's operation. He sutured his wife's vagina completely closed.

(Page 3 of the newsletter.)

Read more...

Theocracy in America

I could not agree more with this post on theocracy in America from Mike of Primacy of Awesome. According to the Slate article on Monica Goodling (a DOJ attorney) to which he links, 150 graduates of Pat Robertson's evangelical Regent University currently work in the Bush Administration. Not one, not five, but one hundred and fifty -- from that one young college alone. Mike writes:

If you are an Objectivist and you don't think religion is a serious and rising threat to the country, consider this. What if one hundred and fifty graduates of the OAC worked in the President's administration? Objectivists would be dancing in the street. Victory would be at hand!

Indeed, yet some Objectivists dismiss the threat of theocracy out-of-hand, claiming that America's sense of life is a impenetrable barrier against possibility. That's sheer fantasy, as Ayn Rand would have known:

A nation's political trends are the equivalent of a man's course of action and are determined by its culture. A nation's culture is the equivalent of a man's conscious convictions. Just as an individual's sense of life can clash with his conscious convictions, hampering or defeating his actions, so a nation's sense of life can clash with its culture, hampering or defeating its political course. Just as an individual's sense of life can be better or worse than his conscious convictions, so can a nation's. And just as an individual who has never translated his sense of life into conscious convictions is in terrible danger--no matter how good his subconscious values--so is a nation.

This is the position of America today.

... If America drags on in her present state for a few more generations (which is unlikely), dictatorship will become possible. A sense of life is not a permanent endowment. The characteristically American one is being eroded daily all around us. Large numbers of Americans have lost it (or have never developed it) and are collapsing to the psychological level of Europe's worst rabble. (Ayn Rand, "Don't Let It Go")

And yes, although the rise of the Religious Right was little more than a gleam in Ronald Regan's eye at the time of her death, Ayn Rand clearly expressed concern about the trend in her final lectures at the Ford Hall Forum.

Also, via the article mentioned by Mike, I found this 2001 Time article about John Ashcroft. The man brought his fundamentalist Christianity to work, literally:

Ashcroft's devout Pentecostal faith, as expressed at the office, has disturbed some employees as well. New guidelines for documents bearing Ashcroft's signature bar the use of the word pride and the phrase "no higher calling than public service," both of which contradict the former Senator's religious views. Each morning at 8 he plays host to what he calls RAMP sessions--for Read, Argue, Memorize and Pray--in his office or conference room. From three to 30 participants chew over Bible passages, commit some to memory and finish with a prayer. Non-Christians are welcome, but many staff members consider the sessions inappropriate, given Ashcroft's position as guardian of the Constitution--including separation of church and state.

Ashcroft bristles at the suggestion that he's doing anything improper. "I don't think the fact that I might want to invite the wisdom of the Almighty into my decision making is a threat to anybody," he told TIME, leading his questioners into his conference room to point out a wall relief that long predates him, depicting King Solomon's deciding the parentage of an infant. "Wisdom in making good decisions can be inspired as well as acquired," he said. If others choose to practice different faiths in their offices, "that's not my business. I'm not part of any sort of prayer police."

Just remember folks, theocratic government is nothing to worry about... so long as you've got your blinders on.

Read more...

Martial Arts Stunt Man Competition

I cannot even begin to fathom the dedicated physical training required for this competition:



Why doesn't America have its own martial arts stunt man competitions on television? What, not enough martial arts stunt men in Hollywood?!?

Read more...

Virginia Tech Shootings

When I heard of the horrible shooting at Virginia Tech yesterday morning, I was seriously worried for Shoshana Milgram. For those who might not recall, she's a professor of English at Virginia Tech. So, for anyone else who might have worried about her, I'm happy to report that I've heard from her and that she's unharmed.

However, anyone who works on a college campus ought to be extra alert for the next few months, as one such event often "inspires" others to do the same. From what I've read, studies have shown that high-profile suicides often result in a spike in the suicide rate. I've noticed the same kind of pattern in mass shootings in middle and high schools. Apparently, people contemplating such horrific action are often emboldened by the sight of others doing the same.

So please, be careful.

Read more...

Lin Zinser to Speak on Healthcare

Tomorrow evening, April 17th, Lin Zinser will speak to the Colorado Springs Republican Women about the pernicious influence of government in healthcare and the current proposals for reform. The event is free and open to the public. For more details, see the announcement.

Read more...

Web Based Messenger

I'm looking for a web-based messenger for Paul and me. It doesn't need to be fancy at all, just easy to use. (Since Paul works different slots at different locations every day, he works on different computers on which he can't install software.) Any suggestions?

Update #1: Paul and I already set up GoogleTalk on our laptops a few months ago -- and it looks like he can use it via GMail on the web. So we'll try that out tonight.

Update #2: Oh, it's working! And it's fabulous!

Read more...

The State of North Korea

Paul recently pointed me to this fascinating report from StrategyPage on the current state of North Korea:

North Korean Mass Diplomat Defections Nightmare

April 8, 2007: The North Korean regime has issued a strong "reminder" to its diplomats, and other personnel stationed abroad, that they are not to have more than one child with them on a foreign posting. This suggests North Korea is worried about possible defections by diplomats, consular officials, business agents, etc., who've got their wives and kids with them in some foreign country. If they can only take one child with them, those that remain home essentially become hostages to their good behavior. The North Korean government has become increasingly alarmed at the number of diplomats defecting and, even worse, those who stick around, but in the pay for American, South Korean and Chinese intelligence agencies.

The response to this order was startling; many of these parents have refused to send children back to North Korea. To old North Korea hands, such defiance to authority is startling. But these North Korea government officials know their country is a basket case, and are willing to risk losing their jobs, rather than send any of their children back to a home country that is, day-by-day, becoming a hellish parody of the communist "workers paradise."

Historians of communism consider North Korea the pinnacle of police state perfection. Josef Stalin would be envious, or maybe proud, because Stalin was one of the founding fathers of North Korea. The degree of state control in North Korea is far in excess of anything ever achieved in the Soviet Union. But this was achieved using a population already disciplined by centuries of efficient feudalism, and several decades of Japanese colonialism. The Japanese were very disciplined, very strict and very brutal. By comparison, the North Korean communist government was something of a relief. Moreover, the North Korean communists worked the nationalist and cultural angle successfully. Because of the total control of the media, the North Korean communists created an alternate universe for their subjects to live in.

As small numbers of North Koreans managed to escape over the years, and make their way to South Korea, usually via China, it was amazing to see the culture shock. The North Korean refugees were numbed by the degree of difference between the fantasy view of the outside world created by the North Korea communists, and the reality.

But in the last decade, reality has seeped into the Perfect Police State, changing the attitudes of the guards, as well as the inmates. True Believers have been gradually replaced by Practical Pretenders. What's happening now, with North Korean government officials openly defying their government, while pretending not to, is the best example of how North Korea culture is evolving. It's weird, it's wretched and, in a perverse way, wonderful.

Read more...

The Panel

I haven't had a chance to watch the free video of the recent UCLA panel discussion with Daniel Pipes, Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan yet, but that's no reason for others to wait!

Read more...

Back to Mac?

Paul and I are seriously considering switching back to Macs for our next computers. We both used Macs for most of the 1990s, i.e. as our first computers, then switched to Windows machines as Apple floundered. Both of us use laptops as our primary machines, so that's what we'd want to buy.

Here's what we're thinking:

The intel chip -- with its capacity to run Windows programs -- is beyond huge. It's a necessity for us, actually. Before that, switching to Mac would have been impossible.

The form of the Macs is so much more thoughtful and elegant than found in PCs. For example, the light magnetic power connector prevents pulling the computer down from some high place as some person or dog trips over the cord. Those kinds of design touches are a real bonus.

The BSD foundation to Macs is hugely appealing to me, given my Unix and Linux programming background. I can do fun stuff with that.

I'm interested in doing some digital video, but I'd hate hate hate to do that on a PC.

We have an Apple store just up the road (i.e. 25 minutes away), so tech support would be easy. I'm pretty adept as a home sysadmin, so we don't need tech support that often. Still, it's nice to have available, particularly since I'm so dependent on my laptop that shipping it away for service is never a viable option.

We've heard nothing but high praise for Macs from friends who've switched back. (In fact, when I mentioned the possibility in the 1FROG meeting last night, I was met with a spontaneous chorus of "Hooray!"

I'm beyond disgusted with Microsoft's penchant for shipping beta-level software, with all kinds of horrid problems that are only fixed with the first service pack, if ever. I've not upgraded to Vista -- although I hear that it's pretty much impossible to buy a new PC without that bag of bugs. I did upgrade to Office 2007. Although I like many of the new features, my computer has slowed down quite a bit since then: Outlook is apparently sucking up vast amounts of memory for no good reason. I need to trust my OS and software suppliers not to screw me over with upgrades, but I can't do that with Microsoft.

I'm also disgusted with the still-piss-poor networking between home computers in Windows. I've got the latest version of XP, as does Paul. Yet our computers still can't manage to communicate on a regular basis. Similarly, I can see our Windows 2000 machine, but it can't see my laptop. In this day and age, that's utterly and completely inexcusable. The only reliable way for Paul and I to exchange files -- other than e-mail -- is via Samba on my ever-trusty Linux development machine. That always works.

And just as a final complaint about Microsoft, its new desktop search still sucks. That's just pathetic. Although I have no idea whether the Mac is better, it surely couldn't be worse!

I'd probably like to spend another six months to year on my current machine (a Dell Inspiron 2007), but Paul is thinking of upgrading sooner. However, I also need to do some work with recorded voice audio files. Is that easier to do on the Mac than on a PC? If so, I might upgrade sooner.

So.... thoughts on the switch?

Read more...

Damn Funny

I won't bother explaining my reasons for finding this analysis of my psycho-epistemology by Phil Coates hysterically funny. (Some of my reasons are obvious; others are private.) Still, I can't resist pointing and laughing at poor Phil making a total ass of himself yet again.

Read more...

Big OCON

This is delightful news:

Past attendees at our Objectivist Summer Conference events know them to be an excellent way of immersing oneself in a benevolent and thriving community of rational minds. With that in mind, OCON is happy to report that Objectivist Summer Conference 2007 is shattering all of our previous registration records, having already attracted twice as many registrants as we had all of last year! The conference takes place from July 6 to 15, 2007, in Telluride, Colorado, with a broad array of lectures and events, highlighted by a six-lecture presentation by Leonard Peikoff from his forthcoming book, "The DIM Hypothesis." The conference will include ten general session lectures, sixteen optional courses, a panel discussion and a series of special events.

This will be an unforgettable conference, both for its content and for its beautiful setting. We hope to see you there!

I saw Dr. Peikoff give some of his lectures for Induction in Physics and Philosophy at my first OCON in 2003, when I was still unhappily involved with IOS/TOC/TAS. I've grown to appreciate his work so much more since that time, so I'm really looking forward to these "DIM" lectures.

Also in conference news:

Lodging Note:
Because of high attendance levels, OCON has arranged conference discounts at additional lodging facilities; see our Air Travel and Lodging page for details. Attendees should book lodging directly with the accommodation of their choice in the Telluride area. We strongly recommend making your hotel reservations as early as possible, as some facilities are already completely booked. If you choose any of the facilities listed on our Air Travel and Lodging page, be sure to give them the registration code "OCON 2007" to take advantage of their conference discount rates.

Schedule Update:
Jason Rheins' optional course, "The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant (part 1 of 3): Kant's Theoretical Philosophy," is now available in both Session 1 and Session 2. (This course was previously available only in Session 2.)

To find out more about and register for the conference, click here.

Read more...

Daily Health Check

This NY Times article "Lessons of Heart Disease, Learned and Ignored" has some really valuable information on the common confusions about heart attacks that lull people into complacency, such that they don't avail themselves of the proper treatment options. It's well-worth reading, particularly if you have family history of heart disease, as I do.

A few days ago, Paul told me of a woman who failed to check out chronic belly pain for months until it became unbearable. At that point, the CT and MRI scans showed colon cancer, already spread to the liver. That's not good: a friend of ours died about 18 months after a similar diagnosis. (She suffered no symptoms until she fainted on the subway.)

On hearing the story, I suddenly struck by an indirect health benefit of my daily course of vigorous exercise: I would never endure such pain for more than a few days (if that) -- not just due to general worry about the cause of the pain but also due to very specific annoyance with my inability to exercise as usual. The same is true of the fatigue that often comes with heart attack mentioned in article above: the problem surely wouldn't be quite so clear or so pressing to me if I were a couch potato.

In other words, exercise doesn't promote health merely by making the body more fit; it's also an important daily test of one's health. That's kinda cool, I think.

P.S. Happy Friday the 13th! It's my lucky day... I was born on Friday, December 13th, 1974.

Read more...

Teaching Next Semester

Much to my delight, on Tuesday I found out that I'll be teaching just one section of "Introduction to Philosophy" in the fall. It'll be from 12:30 to 1:45 pm with 25 or so students.

I've not taught that course before, so I'm definitely looking forward to constructing it. As with the three sections of Ethics that I've taught over the past year, it's wholly my own class. So once again, I'll probably create my own course packet. (I'm a GTPI -- a Graduate Part-Time Instructor -- no longer in the special limbo of teaching purgatory reserved for TAs.)

Happily, it's precisely the course that I wanted to teach. (My other alternative was to teach applied ethics (i.e. "Philosophy and Society"), but I'm pretty sick of teaching ethics. Even better, the class in the middle of the day, not at 8:00 am! I've taught at that abominably early hour both semesters this past year, meaning that I must drag myself out of bed to commute the hour to Boulder at 5 am. That's damn unnatural behavior for me. I swore that I'd teach German Phenomenology, a subject about which I know absolutely nothing, before teaching at 8 am again.

And best of all, until just recently, I thought GTPIs taught a four course load each year of 25 - 35 students each class. So I thought I only taught a single section last semester because it was my first semester teaching. However, as it turns out, we only have a three course load each year, so I'll always have one semester of teaching just one course. That's delightful news!

As an aside, we're supposed to get about a foot of snow over the next 24 hours. Seriously.

Read more...

Socialized Medicine in Colorado -- An Open Letter to Colorado Physicians

Socialized Medicine in Colorado -- An Open Letter to Colorado Physicians
by Paul S. Hsieh, MD; paulhsiehmd@gmail.com

Dear Colleagues:

My name is Dr. Paul Hsieh, and I am a physician practicing in the south Denver metro area.

I am deeply concerned that socialized medicine may be imposed on Colorado by our state legislature within the next year or so under the guise of "comprehensive health care reform". I'm morally opposed to this because I believe it would be destructive to our medical practices and harmful to our patients. I'd like your help now in speaking out against this ominous prospect.

The political process which could lead to socialized medicine is already underway, but most working physicians I've spoken with have been unaware of it. Hence, I want to sound the alarm before it's too late.

As some of you may know, in June 2006 the Colorado state legislature authorized a special 24-person Commission (called the "208 Commission" after Senate bill SB208) to generate proposals to restructure the health care system in Colorado, and submit them for legislative approval. The Commissioners were chosen by politicians from both political parties. Currently, there are only two doctors on the 208 Commission; the other 22 are representatives of various special interest groups.

The basic premise of the 208 Commission is that the government must guarantee health care for all Coloradoans. During their public meetings, a significant number of the Commissioners have expressed support for some form of socialized medicine. Although they frequently use euphemisms such as "single payer" or "universal mandatory coverage", similar language has been used in other US states and in other countries to justify massive government control of medicine.

Simultaneously, the Colorado Medical Society (CMS) has developed an official position in which they urged that health care in Colorado should be "universal, continuous, portable, and mandatory".

On January 25, 2007, the CMS submitted those "Guiding Principles" to the 208 Commission, portraying them as the consensus of the doctors of Colorado. They have also stated that the "CMS believes, after extensive vetting and a unanimous vote at the 2006 House of Delegates, that the Guiding Principles represent a compelling consensus of Colorado physicians".

When I first learned of this, I was angered and appalled, because that position does not reflect my views or the views of many other physicians that I've spoken with. The CMS does not speak for me on this issue, and I am not part of this "compelling consensus".

I completely oppose any form of socialized medicine, regardless of whether it is called "single payer", "mandatory universal coverage", or anything else, because I believe it would be bad for both patients and doctors. Years of experience in the US and other countries have shown that these programs will hurt patients and even cause their deaths. As costs inevitably spiral upward, bureaucrats will ration medical services. Eventually, physicians will be forced to practice against their best medical judgment. This is a violation of the fundamental rights of both doctors and patients.

As a result, in states like Tennessee (which in 1994 implemented its own version of mandatory universal coverage called TennCare), many doctors find the practice climate intolerable and are either leaving the state or quitting medicine entirely. I do not want that to happen in Colorado. States like Massachusetts and California, which are also attempting to guarantee universal health care for their residents, will soon face similar problems.

Although I agree that there are genuine problems with the current system, more government interference in medicine can only make things worse. One basic principle we all learned in medical school was, "First, do no harm". This applies as well to politics as it does to clinical practice. Most of the problems of the current system have been the result of bad government policies. Adding more government bureaucrats to the mix will only make things worse.

In my opinion, it is not the government's role to guarantee health care for all Coloradoans, any more than it is the government's job to guarantee all citizens a car or a job. It is morally wrong and economically unsustainable. Doctors and patients ought to be able to freely contract for medical services to their mutual benefit without interference from the government. It is precisely the attempts by the governments in Canada and Great Britain (or states like Tennessee) to guarantee universal "cradle-to-grave" coverage that has led to the runaway costs and rapidly deteriorating health care in those places.

I recognize that not everyone will agree with me here, and this is part of my point. This is a very contentious issue amongst doctors. Based on my discussions with numerous physicians, I don't think one can accurately say that there is a "compelling consensus" of the doctors of Colorado.

So if you oppose socialized medicine on the grounds of medical conscience (as I do), then please contact the Colorado Medical Society and the 208 Commission, and let them know where you stand.

Even a one line e-mail like, "I oppose universal, mandatory coverage or any other form of socialized medicine, because it will be bad for me and my patients", could have a tremendous impact.

To contact the relevant members of the CMS and the 208 Commission go to: http://tinyurl.com/2y9t4f or send mail to 208Commission@coloradofoundation.org.

The CMS is speaking in your name on this issue, so if you disagree with their position (or if you believe that their position should not be portrayed as the physician "consensus"), then they need to know. The CMS has requested feedback from doctors including those who disagree with their current position, so I urge you to take them up on this.

The 208 Commission is a public body, and has also asked for input from all citizens of Colorado. So if you want to protect your right to practice good medicine and protect your patients' best interests, they need to hear from you before they submit their proposals to the state legislature for a vote.

For further information about this issue, one excellent resource is the website www.WeStandFIRM.org, a non-profit group of Coloradoans devoted to freedom and individual rights in medicine. I especially recommend their article, "Health Care is Not a Right" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. If you wish to stay informed on this topic, I also encourage you to sign up for their mailing list or read their blog.

Also, please feel free to forward this open letter to any other Colorado physicians that may be interested. A copy of this letter is also available online at: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org/docs/Hsieh-01.html.

Sincerely,
Paul S. Hsieh, MD
E-mail: paulhsiehmd@gmail.com

Disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, but an independent voter. My objections to socialized medicine are unrelated to party politics.

--------------------

References:

I've listed some references for those who want more information. These are optional resources for those who want to learn more about these topics, but not required reading. (I do not necessarily endorse every item in full):

"Health Care is Not a Right" (HTML format or PDF format):
[Online essay] This brilliant essay was written by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, a philosophy PhD living in Colorado Springs. The original version was written in the 1990's after Hillary Clinton proposed her infamous national health care plan, and has been updated by Lin Zinser and Dr. Peikoff for 2007. He argues that a "right" to health care does not exist and that any attempt to create one necessarily leads to disaster, because it runs antithetical to the genuine rights that were recognized and codified in the Constitution by the American Founding Fathers.

"A Short Course in Brain Surgery":
[Video] This astounding 5-minute video tells the story of an Ontario man with a brain tumor who couldn't get the care he needed under the Canadian system because the waiting lists for an MRI scan and for a neurosurgeon were too long. Fortunately, he was able to get appropriate treatment in Buffalo, NY.

"Health Insurance in the United States"
[Online article] This informative article covers the development of the U.S. health insurance system and its growth in the twentieth century, including the development of Medicare and Medicaid. It also examines the role of government policy in setting the stage for nationalized health care.

"The History of Health Care Costs and Health Insurance":
[Online article] This report was written by Linda Gorman, who is a health-care economist at the Independence Institute in Golden, CO. In this article, she covers the history of spiraling health care costs and government control of medical care, and shows how bad laws and other government interference in medicine have led to the current problems. She also offers some positive market-based alternatives to socialized medicine which have been proven to simultaneously increase patient outcomes and decrease costs, including Health Savings Accounts (HSA's), insurance deregulations, etc.

"Your Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism About National Health Care":
[Book] This book by Jane Orient, MD, is an illuminating and provocative analysis of the immorality and impracticality of government interference in medicine in general, and single-payer systems in particular. Dr. Orient is the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

"The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care":
[Book] This book was written by Dr. David Gratzer, a physician who has practiced in both the US and Canada, and has first-hand experience with the pros and cons of both countries' medical systems. His documentation of the long waiting lists in Canada and the higher mortality rates for treatable conditions is chilling. He also provides excellent historical background on how health insurance became linked to employee benefits as a result of bad IRS policies, with all the resultant problems. His basic conclusion is that capitalism, not socialism, is the way to address the problems. He offers a number of practical, concrete proposals to fix our current problems, all of which are based on decreasing government interference in medicine.

Podcast interview of Dr. David Gratzer at Instapundit.com:
[Podcast] A 30 minute interview by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit.com with Dr. Gratzer on the problems and solutions to America's health care problems.

"Universal Health Care -- Call It Socialized Medicine":
[Online essay] Lawrence Huntoon, MD, PhD, discusses why "universal health care" is synonymous with "socialized medicine". He also observes:

Indeed, "universal coverage," nationalized health care, or socialized medicine, regardless of what you choose to call it, is not the same as medical care. All of the citizens of Canada, for instance, have "universal coverage." What they often don't have, however, is the medical care that they need when they need it. That is why we see Canadians crossing the border into the United States in droves to obtain the health care that they can't get when they need it in their own country. Their government rations access to health care and thus attempts to control costs by making MRI scans, radiation oncology, bypass surgeries and many other health services largely unavailable to their own people.

Dr. Huntoon is a former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and is a practicing neurologist in New York state.

"Universal Health Care's Dirty Little Secret":
[Online article] Trying to provide universal coverage doesn't actually result in better care, just rationing.

"No 'Crisis' of Uninsured":
[Online article] Rocky Mountain News columnist Mike Rosen debunks the myth that there is a "vast army of people... who are permanently unable to obtain health insurance".

"Why Are Health Costs Rising?":
[Online article] A nice short analysis on why health care costs have risen so much. Again, the basic problem is government interference in normal market mechanisms. As anyone who has bought a cell phone or a DVD player recently knows, the natural course of the marketplace is higher quality goods for lower prices over time. Even in the medical field, this has been the pattern in LASIK and cosmetic surgery, i.e., in the types of medical care where patients pay for themselves and are therefore incentivized to be prudent shoppers.

"Colorado Medical Socialism":
[Online article] A strong critique of the CMS position on universal mandatory health care by Boulder Weekly writer Ari Armstrong.

There is no health care crisis in Colorado:
From Lin Zinser's 3/28/2007, "Report on the 208 Commission" (scroll down to her "second point"). She notes, "According to Colorado voters there is no crisis of health care in Colorado. According to Colorado voters polled in December 2006 for the Denver-Metro Chamber of Commerce, 77% of Colorado voters believe their own health care is good or excellent and 60% believe the quality of health care in Colorado as a whole is good or excellent. More to the point, only 7% describe the situation in Colorado health care as a crisis."

Problems with Tennessee's universal health care system, TennCare [online articles]:
"The Price of Seduction"
(A devastating criticism of TennCare from family practice physician, Dr. Sydney Smith.)
"Tennessee: Lesson for California"
"TennCare: A model for how American socialized medicine will fail"

Problems with Massachusetts' universal health care system [online articles] :
"Universal Healthcare Boondoggle"
"Universal Health Care: Proceed with Caution"
"Intensive Care for RomneyCare"
"Bad Medicine: What's Wrong With RomneyCare"

Problems with California's proposed universal health care system [online articles] :
"One Step Forward, Ten Steps Back: How California Will Make Health Care Much More Expensive"
"Schwarzenegger's Folly"
(Analysis by John Stossel, co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20".)

Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:
[Organization] From their website:

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.

I encourage all physicians interested in staying informed on these issues to sign up for their mailing list. FIRM also runs a weblog.

The Colorado Medical Society and some key officers:
Alfred Gilchrist (Executive Director): Alfred_Gilchrist@cms.org
Chet Seward (Director of Health Care Policy): Chet_Seward@cms.org
Lynn Parry, MD (President): nurvdr@mac.com
David Downs, MD (President-Elect): David_Downs@cms.org
Mark Laitos, MD: mlaitos@comcast.net
Ben Vernon, MD: wbvernon@qwest.net

The 208 Commission official website:
The full list of the 208 Commissioners and the publicly available e-mail addresses:
William N. Lindsay III, Chairman: 208Commission@coloradofoundation.org
Erik Ammidown: erik.ammidown@qwest.com
Elisabeth Arenales: earenales@cclponline.org
Clarke Becker: unknown
Carrie Besnette: cbesnette@gmail.com
David Downs, MD: David_Downs@cms.org
Steve Erkenbrack: unknown
Lisa Esgar: lisa.esgar@state.co.us
Linda Gorman: Linda@i2i.org
Julia Greene: jgreene@seiu105.org
Allan Jensen: allanjensen@earthlink.net
Grant Jones: grant@caahealth.org
Donna Marshall: cbghealth@aol.com
Pam Nicholson: pamnicholson@centura.org
Ralph Pollock: ralph@apaccess.com
David Rivera: unknown
Arnold Salazar: Arnolds@chnpartners.com
Mark Simon: mbsimon@juno.com
Dan Stenersen: unknown
Steven Summer: steven.summer@cha.com
Mark Wallace: unknown
Joan Weber: unknown
Barbara Yondorf: byondorf@rcfdenver.org
Peg Burnette: peg.burnette@dhha.org
Donald Kortz: dkortz@fullercompany.com
Lynn Westberg: lynn@sjbhd.org

[This letter was slightly edited on 4/17/2007. -- PSH]

Read more...

The Virtue of Obedience Versus Moral Responsibility

I'm presently reading the excellent history of the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason by Charles Freeman. I have much to say about the matters discussed in the book, but for the moment, I'll confine myself to one tangential but shockingly blunt tidbit.

Toward the end of the chapter on "The Ascetic Odyssey," Freeman observes that "one can never know whether one is truly saved" in Christianity because "there is no way to judge objectively just how guilty one is in the eyes of God." Consequently, "the only true way to secure a rest from tension on earth is to escape completely from the exercise of moral responsibility; here the 'virtue' of obedience becomes crucial." He then quotes the first paragraph of the following passage from an account of moral responsibility in the life of a Jesuit monk found in William James' Varieties of Religious Experience:

One of the great consolations of the monastic life," says a Jesuit authority, "is the assurance we have that in obeying we can commit no fault. The Superior may commit a fault in commanding you to do this thing or that, but you are certain that you commit no fault so long as you obey, because God will only ask you if you have duly performed what orders you received, and if you can furnish a clear account in that respect, you are absolved entirely. Whether the things you did were opportune, or whether there were not something better that might have been done, these are questions not asked of you, but rather of your Superior. The moment what you did was done obediently, God wipes it out of your account, and charges it to the Superior. So that Saint Jerome well exclaimed, in celebrating the advantages of obedience, 'Oh, sovereign liberty! Oh, holy and blessed security by which one become almost impeccable!'

"Saint John Climachus is of the same sentiment when he calls obedience an excuse before God. In fact, when God asks why you have done this or that, and you reply, it is because I was so ordered by my Superiors, God will ask for no other excuse. As a passenger in a good vessel with a good pilot need give himself no farther concern, but may go to sleep in peace, because the pilot has charge over all, and 'watches for him'; so a religious person who lives under the yoke of obedience goes to heaven as if while sleeping, that is, while leaning entirely on the conduct of his Superiors, who are the pilots of his vessel, and keep watch for him continually. It is no small thing, of a truth, to be able to cross the stormy sea of life on the shoulders and in the arms of another, yet that is just the grace which God accords to those who live under the yoke of obedience. Their Superior bears all their burdens... A certain grave doctor said that he would rather spend his life in picking up straws by obedience, than by his own responsible choice busy himself with the loftiest works of charity, because one is certain of following the will of God in whatever one may do from obedience, but never certain in the same degree of anything which we may do of our own proper movement." (Alfonso Rodriguez, S. J.: Pratique de la Perfection Chretienne, Part iii., Treatise v., ch. x.)

After quoting the first paragraph, Freeman concludes the chapter with the apt comment: "Here, the abdication of the power to think for oneself is complete." Exactly.

Read more...

Eric Daniels to Speak in Boston

Eric Daniels will be speaking at Tufts University on Monday, April 16th on "The Morality of Capitalism." Eric is an excellent speaker, so I recommend attending if possible. Here's the official announcement:

The Morality of Capitalism

Who: Dr. Eric Daniels, speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute

What: A talk explaining why capitalism is the only moral social system

When: Monday, April 16, at 7:30 PM

Where: Tufts University, Barnum 104, 163 Packard Avenue, Medford, MA 02155

Admission is FREE.

Description: Despite the enormous success of American capitalism at producing material abundance and political freedom, critics continue their assault on the system, calling it immoral. In this lecture, Dr.
Eric Daniels makes the case that capitalism is the only moral social system. He also examines the conventional defense of capitalism, which relies on the practical, economic argument, and illustrates why only a defense of pure laissez-faire capitalism can succeed.

Bio: Dr. Eric Daniels is a visiting scholar at Clemson University's Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He taught for five years at Duke University, in the Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace, and at the University of Wisconsin, where he earned his doctorate in American history. He has lectured internationally on the history of American ethics, American business and legal history, and the American Enlightenment. Daniels's publications include a chapter in "The Abolition of Antitrust" and five entries in the "Oxford Companion to United States History."

Read more...

What's Wikipedia Good For?

"For conservative computer users who find the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to harbor too many values that conflict with their own, a new site awaits," says an NPR interview with the founder of Conservapedia, a 'conservative alternative' to Wikipedia.

Sure, we can talk all day about the egalitarian, distributed, unowned nature of Wikipedia that translates to inconsistent coverage, errors forever being introduced and corrected, encouragement of a chopped up style, how all this is discouraging of work by top experts, how that all complicates effective use of the site. But none of that is Conservapedia's beef. No, they think that Wikipedia has a liberal bias while they prefer an encyclopedia with a conservative bias. And note that bias per-se isn't in fact a sin to be avoided, as some of their rhetoric would imply -- no, bias is wonderful according to Conservapedia. Just so long as it is conservative bias.

Looking at Conservapedia's entry for "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" (note that spin on the sin), there are endless examples of errors and oversights which Wikipedia's fundamental principles would guide treatment of (in particular, writers must always cite sources and in cases of disagreement 'present the debate’ from a 'neutral point of view'). Even their anxiety over the demographic composition of Wikipedia writers (lots on the Left, lots who are not Christian or theistic or whatever) is no big deal because Wikipedia's fundamental operating principles point to an obvious solution: anybody can be a writer, so go get more of the "right" people to pile on and make sure your perspective is accurately presented when there is disagreement.

In that NPR interview, however, Conservapedia's founder didn't give any whiff of appreciating how these principles relate to the issues he cites. If there were a genuine bias problem for Wikipedia, he would be talking about an inability or refusal to recognize a dispute or to accurately represent the sides, and he would be calling for Wikipedia to simply adhere to its fundamental principles. So this fellow's real trouble lies elsewhere: if I had to guess, I would say his authority-based epistemology recoils at the idea of letting competing views sit side-by-side with The Answer as he sees it, as if people might have to do some work to know reality rather than simply hear the Truth and be enlightened.

Which brings us to appreciating Wikipedia for what it is. As best I can tell, Wikipedia is not really about capturing objective knowledge, but about chronicling the current beliefs of mankind. In any given topic, to the degree people have decent epistemologies and are grounded in reality, it will point toward useful facts -- but to the degree that people don’t and aren’t, it will reflect their confusion. Such a chronicle is certainly useful, but even at its most excellent it would not make people more rational or knowledgeable. Merely seeing what other people hold to be true only constitutes knowledge of what is held to be true, and having access to accurately-presented positions in disputed cases will not automatically improve anyone's epistemology: rational people will focus and sort the facts out, and irrational people will evade; second-handed minds will look for something to faithfully follow (whether it is an authority like Billy Graham, the Institute for Creation Research, or simply tradition or the majority opinion) -- while independent minds will look for grounded approaches to engage, without regard to tradition or majority status. Consider Conservapedia's founder: Wikipedia has certainly not made him more knowledgeable or rational regarding, say, biology. And indeed, easy inspiration for him to create Conservapedia is found in the (appropriate) double fear that people who are not as steeped in his authority-based style of thinking could wander from the flock if exposed to those competing views, while others who are as authority-based might stumble into trusting the wrong authority and likewise wander.

In short, peoples' epistemologies are the cause of how they use Wikipedia, not the other way around.

This is why think of Wikipedia as primarily an effect rather than a cause -- as descriptive rather than prescriptive -- much like dictionaries. Dictionaries primarily tell us how we do use words, not how we should use them. And realizing this profoundly shapes how we confront their contents. When we see something conceptually horrid in the dictionary, our natural reaction isn’t to twist the arm of the editor or to go off and start our own competing dictionary: we understand that it is a reflection of the culture, so we go spread a better concept or usage via education and so on. Likewise with Wikipedia, our natural reaction to something horribly confused in it should be to make sure our perspective is clearly presented and to get to work in the culture, enjoying Wikipedia's utility in indicating when the confusion has shrunk to a meaningless minority of minds.

So Wikipedia can be valuable as a cultural barometer for those in the know, and as a starting place for those who aren't. It is not primarily a substitute for thinking or a repository of knowledge, even though the Conservapedians -- and apparently even some Wikipedians -- wish that it was.

Read more...

A Peep Show

If only everyone celebrated Easter by creating fabulous dioramas of Peeps in action! (Instead of worshipping some guy who supposedly rose from the dead, that is.) I like #4 the best.

Read more...

Winter Wonderland

It is not unusual for the Front Range to get snow in April. However, it is unusual for us to have three days of pretty serious winter weather, as we've had this Friday, Saturday, and now today. Here's the view from outside our front door this morning:



Oh, and it's 23.5 degrees outside right now.

I can't complain too much though: the moisture will mean lush pastures for the horses this spring and summer, beautiful wildflowers on the trails in our neighborhood, and greatly reduced risk of fire.

Update: It's still snowing pretty vigorously as of 2:30 pm. The snow is supposed to continue through this evening and tonight. Warmer weather is promised tomorrow.

Annoyed by the snow, I just bought this fancy new two-in-one Rambo blanket for my lovely mare Tara. It has a light outer shell that I can use by itself in the spring and fall, plus a heavy-duty under layer and optional hood for really damn cold weather. I already have -- and regularly use -- two fantastic medium-weight Rambo blankets on both my horses. However, that just didn't provide enough warmth for Tara when it was bitterly cold, snowy, and windy this winter. (Tara doesn't grow the thick coat in the winter that Jackson does, so while snow piles up on him, it melts on her. So she needs more protection.) I also have a lighter blanket for her in weather like we're having now, but it's a bit too tight across her shoulders, so she gets grumpy when she has to wear it. So the new blanket will replace that blanket too. Of course, I probably won't be able to use it until the fall, but at least it'll be ready and waiting!

Read more...

Mormonism and Christianity

Paul and I had a short discussion a few weeks ago about Mormonism. After I posted my entry on Mark Skousen's essay on Ayn Rand, Paul discovered that Skousen is Mormon. He suggested that I change the entry to reflect that, but I replied that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, so my description of him as Christian was fine. Paul mentioned the new covenant of Mormonism. I suggested that Mormons accepted the Apostles' Creed, so that made them Christian, whatever silly stuff they added to it. Neither of us cared too much, nor knew too much, so that was pretty much the end of the discussion.

Three questions:

• Do Mormons consider themselves Christians? (I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes.)
  
  
• Do other Christians consider Mormons Christians? (I suspect that varies greatly. Some Protestants probably don't consider Catholics Christian and vice versa. That's the fallacy of the frozen abstraction, I think.)
  
  
• Most importantly: Are Mormons properly classified as Christians? In other words, do their core doctrines vary fundamentally from those of Baptists, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Quakers, etc, such that their religion should be considered an alternative to Christianity rather than just a form of it? (I don't know enough about Mormonism to say.)

I don't care much about the particular case of Mormonism, but I am interested in the conceptual classification of systems of belief, as well as the core principles and boundaries of Christianity.

Read more...

Here It Goes Again

There's a good reason that the band OK Go won the YouTube's "Most Creative" music video award for "Here It Goes Again".

Read more...

The Jewish War

I'm currently listening to Flavius Josephus' classic work The Jewish War. It's a history of the Jewish-Roman war fought from 66 to 73 AD, with substantial background. Although I originally wanted to read it as historical context for the development of early Christianity, I'm finding it a very interesting and engaging work in its own right. (I'm in Book 2 right now; the war has yet to begin.)

The work vividly portrays the dangerous political instability of that time -- not just in the highest political offices of Rome, but also the regional and local powers. (That sheds light on the enormous challenge faced by the American Founding Fathers in their quest to create a stable system of republican government.) Moreover, even today's most experienced soap opera writers could learn a thing or two from the lengthy story of King Herod's treacherous family life. (Lies, murders, manipulations, treacheries, paranoia, and more!)

The work also offers much of interest regarding religious fanaticism. For example:

Now there followed after this another calamity, which arose from a tumult made by robbers; for at the public road at Beth-boron, one Stephen, a servant of Caesar, carried some furniture, which the robbers fell upon and seized. Upon this Cureanus sent men to go round about to the neighboring villages, and to bring their inhabitants to him bound, as laying it to their charge that they had not pursued after the thieves, and caught them. Now here it was that a certain soldier, finding the sacred book of the law, tore it to pieces, and threw it into the fire.

Hereupon the Jews were in great disorder, as if their whole country were in a flame, and assembled themselves so many of them by their zeal for their religion, as by an engine, and ran together with united clamor to Cesarea, to Cumanus, and made supplication to him that he would not overlook this man, who had offered such an affront to God, and to his law; but punish him for what he had done. Accordingly, he, perceiving that the multitude would not be quiet unless they had a comfortable answer from him, gave order that the soldier should be brought, and drawn through those that required to have him punished, to execution, which being done, the Jews went their ways.

Sound familiar? It should: it's awfully similar to the "pissing on the Koran" story that dominated the news a few years back. These fanatical Jews, like today's Muslims, demand death for blasphemers. (That is the punishment required in the Hebrew Bible, Leviticus 24

Josephus' lengthy description of the Essene sect in Book 2, Chapter 8 was also of great interest to me, particularly for the parallels between the doctrines of the Essenes and those of Christianity. To take a small example, Josephus describes the Essenes as follows:

They are eminent for fidelity, and are the ministers of peace; whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; but swearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury for they say that he who cannot be believed without [swearing by] God is already condemned.

Similarly, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus admonishes:

Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, "Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord." But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No"; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (Matthew 5)

If Jesus actually taught this view of oaths, he might have gotten it from the Essenes. (It's less likely that it was a common Jewish teaching at the time, since Josephus is concerned to explain all the strange and unique practices of the Essenes in this chapter.) Alternately, early Christians might have imputed this view of oaths to Jesus based on some familiarity with Essene teachings. From all I've read, I'd have to say that tracing the historical lineage of that idea into Christianity would be impossible: our knowledge of what Jesus actually taught is too uncertain to judge such matters. In fact, I'd say that we really can't know that Jesus taught anything at all -- or even that he existed as anything like any of the various men portrayed in the Gospels. Still, it's interesting that the idea has some historical precedent in Judaism.

Of course, the full meaning of Jesus' command against oaths is widely ignored by Christians today. They routinely swear on this and that and the other thing. I'd like to know: How do Biblical literalists justify such selective obedience to Scripture? It's as if -- so long as you renounce reason to make room for faith in Jesus -- the commands of a truly merciful God become mere suggestions. Yet other commands, like the injunctions against homosexuality in the Law of Moses, are somehow still in full effect. So what do contemporary evangelical Christians say about that?

Read more...

Another Question for NoodleFood

Paul Revere (not the original one, obviously) asks:

Objectivism states that, among the purposes of government, it acts as an objective arbiter between men by enforcing contracts and laws. Individuals as such are free to make any contract between them, the integrity of which is ensured by the courts. I'm a little foggier on laws.

Here's an example: for whatever reason, your city has zoned a specific section of road with a low speed limit compared to those before and after it. Is it moral to disobey the speed limit if you choose? It would seem trivial, but you'd be breaking the law regardless.

My thinking is: laws are instituted by some objective process, and by living in this city with other men you've agreed to abide by them. Of course, some laws are unjust (e.g. speed limits apply to public roads, thus being based on another unjust law) but since laws are objectively decided, an individual man cannot morally, or legally, spurn those he disagrees with. Clear enough, right?

Now, what if the law in question would be dangerous to obey? (Assume for this example that there is no alternative route and you're forced in some way to make this choice, by previous ignorance or whatnot.) Say this section of low-speed road comes right after a high-speed one, around a blind corner for kicks. Following it would surely, to your reasoning, result in a rear-ending. Is it moral to obey the law then? If you've misjudged and it really isn't as dangerous as imagined, does that change anything?

And if it would be moral to disregard the law in those circumstances, based on your own judgement, why does the degree of danger matter? (From no ill effects, to losing your job for being late, to being rear-ended, to dying in an accident.) Where is the line at which it becomes an "emergency situation", if at all?

Finally, does the logic here change with isolated and harmless lawbreaking, such as drinking booze during the 1920's Prohibition? What about harmless, but mutually agreed lawbreaking, like performing banned sex acts (e.g. sodomy in Texas)?"

First, a warning: It's my understanding that it's a crime to advocate breaking the law. So please keep that in mind as you post in the comments.

Now onto the substance of the question:

The Objectivist view is not that "laws are instituted by some objective process, and by living in this city with other men you've agreed to abide by them." Laws in this country are instituted by pull-peddling majority rule, with scant respect for individual rights, even those explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. The resulting laws are often grossly non-objective -- in the sense that you cannot know in advance whether you are breaking them or not. (The worst example is antitrust law, although I'd say that tax and regulatory law is too bizarrely complicated to be knowingly obeyed.) Moreover, a person does not consent to the laws of a given government simply by choosing to live within its territory -- particularly not when significantly better alternatives are nowhere to be found. He never agreed to abide by the laws; he may have even resolved to do the opposite in some cases.

Moreover, the Objectivist ethics would never endorse the command "obey the law" as a binding normative principle, as the question suggests. Barring metaphysical emergencies, we are obliged to respect the rights of others. That respect for the independent judgment of others is a matter of self-interest: it is a means of advancing our lives. (For a detailed discussion of what counts as a metaphysical emergency, see Tara Smith's new book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.)

In a fully free society, respecting the rights of others means obeying the law, precisely because those laws are just protections of rights. However, when laws violate rights, they can imperil the fundamental values of life, e.g. health, wealth, happiness. In that case, a person cannot be morally obliged to obey them. Of course, it may be prudent for him to obey them nonetheless, given the likelihood of detection and punishment. Yet it would be incoherent say that a person must sacrifice his highest value, i.e. his own life, for the sake of the ill-conceived and unjust products of majority rule.

However, that doesn't morally justify disobeying every unjust law. Not every wrong law threatens your basic values. Moreover, in a basically free society, the rule of law is an important principle to respect and uphold, particularly when free to agitate for the repeal of those laws. (Tara Smith spoke persuasively on the importance of rule of law in her lecture How "Activist" Should Judges Be?.) Unfortunately, campaign finance laws dramatically limit the freedom to agitate for the repeal of bad laws in this country today.

So where is the line between justifiable and unjustifiable law-breaking properly drawn? I don't have any more of an answer to that question than found in Leonard Peikoff's course "The DIM Hypothesis." (It's available for free to registered users of AynRand.org.) In lecture 8, he discusses the question of the obligation to obey unjust laws twice: first during the lecture itself (about 14 minutes into it) then during the Q&A (about 10 minutes from the end). Undoubtedly, more work remains to be done on this topic: Dr. Peikoff's remarks are only an outline of an answer. They're a good beginning though.

Thoughts, NoodleFoodleDoodlers?

Read more...

Life or Death

In her discussion of ethics, Ayn Rand noted that "the fundamental alternative is life or death".

But when I recently took my recertification class for Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support aka ACLS (which includes the various drug and defibrillation protocols for the different forms of cardiac arrest), our instructor told us that it was helpful to think of our patients as falling into one of the following four categories:

"Stable, unstable, kind-of-dead, and really dead".

The treatment algorithms then divided up quite neatly along those lines.

Read more...

Modern Art

Originally, this was a short post from Paul. However, the short comment I wanted to add to it turned rather long, so I made it my own post. Paul originally wrote:

Here are some strange statues from around the world. A few are actually clever and/or cool; others portray human beings in odd or grotesque ways.

The link is now to a different page. Apparently, the post was so popular that they've now moved it to its very own web site.

Many of the sculptures are so bizarre as to be rationally incomprehensible, e.g. the space cow and the square head. Most are recognizable human figures deliberately made grotesque, primitive, and deformed, as is characteristic of the lower forms of naturalism. Interestingly, a few of the bizarre statues do show some serious talent. The running knot of legs (no longer available, apparently), for example, really seems to be in motion.

The few better statues are a higher form of naturalism: they are refreshingly ordinary-looking people well-blended into their surroundings, as in the elegant woman on the bench and the photographer peering around the building. They are so realistic that the viewer often does a double-take in recognizing the sculpture as such. The more imaginative ones are even funny, as in manhole prankster. These kind of double-take statues seem more common these days; I expect that people like them far better than the alternatives offered. However, it goes without saying that the purpose of art is not the surprise of realizing "Oh, that's a statue!"

The voluminous comments on the now-defunct page were very revealing of people's views of art today. Here are a few that stood out to me. (Each paragraph is a new comment.)

What a collection! All sorts of adjectives could apply, in my opinion: beautiful, moving, weird, ugly, shocking, obscene, hugely imaginative, humorous, thought-provoking, depressing, and so on. It all depends on one's point of view. This collection is a good illustration of the fact that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder..and to criticize any type of art form, well, just shows your narrow mindedness. Just say you don't understand and be done with it! Human sexuality, and all it entails, is a beautiful and wonderful thing. Maybe if people were more open minded & less self centered, the world would be a better place to live in.

Two observations: Beauty (and/or art) is in the eye of the beholder, and judge not lest you be judged (yes, you can be judged by your judgement). All artists make an emotional or intellectual statement through their medium, so only the artists know if they have made that statement and thus made art. Only the art dealer knows whether he or she thinks it will sell or not. Only the buyer knows if he or she likes the work enough to pay out money for it. Or not. Only you know whether you like it or not. It's dull, it's disgusting, it's not "highbrow," it's juvenile. It's fun, it's fascinating, it's provocative, it's art. Who cares?

Utterly and gloriously wonderful ! The art stimulated an amazing range of emotional spectrums from me …from a full throated laugh of pleasure to a gasp of surprise and a thousand other feelings ! Some of the comments here surprised me…some people seem personally affronted as if the artist has set out to provoke them specifically .Art does affect each viewer in a very personal way BUT the important thing to remember is that other people will respond completely differently to you and that is is the beautiful and incredible experience of viewing ANY art(from the simple sketch a child may draw with it's toe in the sand to the traditional oil by a master) ! Some people also seem to take the unusual view that *art* must be both beautiful and pleasing…it may be both of these and more …and it may not. Sometimes art may shock and startle but this isn't a bad thing (in my opinion) .I personally will look at this site often and feel inspired and amazed .(p.s I would love to add some photoghraphs of some incredible statues if anyone can provide the email address in order to submit them)

I love "public art". It is an emotional high for me. The artist feels inspired and makes a statement. We either like it or not, but anyhow, we have to admire and respect talent, magnificent or not. We need this kind of exposure. It opens our minds, develop new ideas and help us understand diversity better. Thanks for this collection. It gives us a chance to "better explore the world."

after struggling with the many definitions of art put forward, the only one that seems to function in all situations for me is that art is art when the artist declares it to be so. We might disagree, but our disagreement is one step removed from creation… Course I've seen things that seem artistic that the creator didn't think were, but still think the creator's definition trumps my own:)

Excellent collection. Every piece thought provoking and able to engender some sort of gut reaction. We all need more whimsy in our lives, not to mention more public displays of oversized genitalia.

From the sublime to the ridiculous…..it's all there. Some great, some ordinary even pedestrian, but all art. Maybe a little more discrimination in the choice of work. Soooo many images, many kinda repetitious, but let's face it, its certainly ALL art. It gets your brain up and running after all. Bravo for undertaking so ambitious and brave a project.

Some are funny, some are gross, some show great talent, some are abstract, some are novel, some are unique, some are artistic, some are not, some show greatness, some are shallow, some are ideal, some are stupid, some are of humans, some are of animals. But all are of humanity.

Just a wonderful collection! Inspiring, frightening and stimulating. Some fine work from Australia, but disappointed you missed the leaping sheep from the Melbourne Performing Arts Centre. Just remember, Ginger and other nay-sayers that art is MEANT to confront us! Take a good hard look at the world around you-it's much uglier than the sex organs of human beings

It is a shame that your shallow perception only permits you to see things such as "A man on an upside down horse." That your prudish upbringing has stunted your abilities to perceive beyond the simple surface reaction. If you are unable, or unwilling, to seek the artistic in what may initially appear to be un-artful to you, as it may not fit in with your predefined notions of what art is, then perhaps you are best to stick to soap operas and american tv.

Someday, I'll no longer be amazed by how quickly the staunch defenders of grotesque and bizarre modern art resort to belligerent and nasty insults. The practice does fit their souls... like a damn ugly glove over a monstrousouly defective hand.

Read more...

Cat Proximity

This graph demonstrates the effect of cat proximity on humans.

Note from Diana: Paul and I confirm this "proximity effect" on a regular basis, often now by exclaiming "You make me stupid!"

Read more...

God's Energy Field

Paul and I recently listened to Dave Harriman's course The Philosophic Corruption of Physics. We found the course enormously interestingly. Although I'm pretty well familiar with Kant's metaphysics and epistemology, I wasn't aware of the myriad ways in which those ideas, in various modified forms, have played themselves out in fundamental physics. It was yet another important lesson in the power of philosophy. (I should note that Harriman posted an update to that course regarding his positive comments about Lewis Little's "Theory of Elementary Waves" therein.)

After listening to that course, I found a good example of bad physics providing cover for mysticism. Here it is:

In my experience, most Christians haven't the faintest clue what the Holy Spirit is. That's hardly surprising: it really makes no sense. It's not a semi-comprehensible divine "person" like the Father and the Son, yet it's somehow on par with them in the Trinity. It's an active force in the world in the Christian scriptures, so it can't just be ignored. But what the heck is it?

In the Teaching Company course Jesus and the Gospels, the lecturer Luke Timothy Johnson routinely describes the Holy Spirit as "God's Energy Field" to make that mysterious whatever-it-is comprehensible. That's a great explanation. It might not make full sense of the Holy Spirit's place in the Trinity, but it does fit well with the Holy Spirit doings in the scriptures. In fact, I'd say that it makes the Holy Spirit seem perfectly ordinary and reasonable!

There's a catch though: that's only true if you think of fields as modern physicists and most people now do, i.e. as abstract, non-physical, and mysterious sum of forces. If you think of them as having some definite physical basis, then it makes no sense to describe the Holy Spirit as "God's Energy Field." In other words, bad physics provides a veneer of rationality to particularly stupidly irrational theology.

Of course, Johnson's description is still helpful to me: I now think of the Holy Spirit as "God's Energy Field, as Fields Are Wrongly Understood Today, Also Somehow a Distinct Person" That works well enough.

Read more...