Yaron Brook announced the dates and locations for the next three OCON conferences:
2009: July 3-11, Boston, MA, Seaport HotelRead more...
2010: July 2-10, Las Vegas, NV, Red Rock Resort
2011: July 1-9, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Marriott Harbor Beach Resort
Here are some more highlights from the second day of the Ayn Rand Institute's summer conference (a.k.a. OCON).
Lin Zinser on "Health-Care Activism: Saving the Life Savers," Class 2 of 3:
Today, Lin discussed some strategies for successful activism, connecting those lessons to her own experience with FIRM. (Some of her stories would be very surprising to most people -- in a good way.)Robert Mayhew on "Thales and the Birth of Philosophy in Ancient Greece":
This lecture was a fascinating discussion of the birth of philosophy, particularly the radical departure from primitive supernaturalism that began with Thales in ancient Greece. Thales inaugurated the study of philosophy as an explicit discipline on the basis of observation and rational argument -- as opposed to relying on traditional myths to explain natural phenomena. Mayhew clearly showed the radical differences between the methods of Thales and those of thinkers in other cultures at the time. Mayhew also traced the unique factors in ancient Greek culture that made possible (but not necessary) the development of explicit philosophy.Pat Corvini: "Two, Three, Four, and All That: The Sequel," Class 1 of 3:
I particularly enjoyed the lessons for the prospects for Objectivism at the end of the lecture.
(The lecture was related to Dr. Mayhew's essay criticizing Robert Tracinski's analysis of the role of philosophy in history, posted to NoodleFood in January 2007.)
This course examines three modern ideas in mathematics: (1) equivalent sets, (2) the postulational method, and (3) the continuum and actual infinities. Today, Pat explained the basics of Cantor's arguments about comparisons of sets, with a few hints of the criticisms to come. (I remembered that somewhat fuzzily from my undergraduate course in philosophy of mathematics.) Tomorrow and the next day, she'll lay out the standard the postulational method, and then discuss the Objectivist approach to these topics. (Very cool!)That's all for today! Read more...
This course is a sequel to her excellent course of last year: Two, Three, Four, and All That.
In my first report on OCON yesterday, I forgot to mention that OCON is huge again: over 400 people are attending. The sheer number of people I don't know is rather overwhelming.
By way of context, last year, over 500 people attended for the 50th anniversary of celebration of Atlas Shrugged in Telluride. Before than, around 300 was average. So it seems that the conference has experienced more than just a transient increase in size over the past two years.
I'm attending the Ayn Rand Institute's summer conference (a.k.a. OCON this week. So in lieu of regular blogging, I thought I'd try to post a few brief highlights each day.
Lin Zinser on "Health-Care Activism: Saving the Life Savers," Class 1 of 3:
Here's yet another Sunday Open Thread for your enjoyment:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
NoodleFood will be on a reduced schedule of just a post (and maybe two) per day over the next week.
Yes, yes, I know, life is hard.
The recently-departed George Carlin on religion:
Very funny! And smart!
This list of "70+ Tools, Tips and Hacks To Work From Bed" looks pretty useful.
I'm not necessarily saying that this applies to anyone I know.
(Via BBspot.)
Some months ago, I needed to photocopy Stanley Milgram's "The Perils of Obedience," a popular article on his famous experiments on authority published in the December 1973 issue of Harpers. (Note to self: blog about that soon!) As I was doing that, I noticed the following quote, excerpted from Philip Slater's book The Pursuit of Loneliness, in the "wraparound" section. I was so struck by its evil that I photocopied the page, in the hopes of blogging it. I forgot about it -- until I found the photocopied page a few days ago while cleaning out my desk. So, at long last, here it is for your reading displeasure:
It is easy to produce examples of the many ways in which Americans attempt to minimize, circumvent, or deny the interdependence upon which all human societies are based. We seek a private house, a private means of transportation, a private garden, a private laundry, self-service stores, and do-it-yourself skills of every kind. An enormous technology seems to have set itself the task of making it unnecessary for one human being ever to ask anything of another in the course of going about his daily business. Even within the family Americans are unique in their feeling that each member should have a separate room, and even a separate television, and car, when economically possible. We seek more and more privacy, and feel more and more alienated and lonely when we get it.Oh how evil of us crass Americans to wish to live lives of our own, pursuing our own goals and dreams, while allowing others to do the same!
Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.Notably, Philip Slater couldn't have written that trash in the kind of society he advocates. He'd be too occupied with the elevating tasks of an "interdependent" life, such as waiting in bread lines for daily rations and working nights to support irresponsible relatives. Read more...
Remember that technique which showed up in the plots of movies like Superman III, Hackers, and Office Space, where someone would change bank software to take fractions of cents from transactions like interest payments and funnel them all into one account? Nobody misses a fraction of a cent -- but given enough transactions over time, the sum can really add up! That's what they call "Salami Slicing."
Of course it is stealing in cases like that, but the same idea of accumulating vast numbers of tiny values that are hardly noticeable could legitimately pay off, too.
Consider this fact about driving your vehicle: left turns often require waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, taking a little more time and gas on average than right turns do. Now, this doesn't make all that much of a difference to most of us (just like the above fraction of a cent we may or may not get in interest from the bank) -- but if you have a fleet of 90,000 big brown trucks that follow the routes you schedule for them each day to deliver packages, then adjusting your software to minimize left turns could really add up!
Last year, according to Heather Robinson, a U.P.S. spokeswoman, the software helped the company shave 28.5 million miles off its delivery routes, which has resulted in savings of roughly three million gallons of gas...That's some serious scratch, especially with the price of gas today! I love it -- kudos to the brain at UPS who saw and brilliantly exploited this little fact.
Whew! I was still a bit depleted Monday, with my brain a little foggier than usual.
This past weekend, we decided to try out an annual mountain bike ride that veteran riders around us have been talking about: the Wild Rockies Boise-to-Idaho City Tour!
Here are the essential stats: we mountain biked about 90-95 miles over two days, climbing a total of about 14 thousand feet (maybe seven hours of riding each day). Tammy and I may be pretty solid riders, but we don't usually do those kinds of numbers -- my rear is still hurting!
We got to ride with about 100 people from around the valley, going from Boise to Idaho City (an old mining town) on Saturday, camping there overnight, and riding a different route back on Sunday. 
Extra cool was how the ride was hosted: they transported our camping gear, and there were lunch and a few "snack break" stops along the way, dinner at the destination -- oh, and there were showers at the high school in Idaho City! I'm pretty sure Tammy thought that improved things in the tent. :^)
Very satisfying to be able to hang with that kind of crowd! (And nice that there were no real injuries in such a large group.)
The latest edition of The Objectivist Roundup is hosted by Titanic Deck Chairs. Go check it out!
Read more...Here is a fascinating 30-minute lecture by Regent University law professor James Duane about the 5th amendment. He is speaking to law students, explaining why he uniformly advises his clients (and everyone) that they should they never, ever, under any circumstances, talk with the police -- guilty or innocent, a suspect or not, even if they are smarter than Aristotle and Newton combined, articulate as all get out, an expert in the law, and pure as the wind-driven snow. Never.
He explains how talking to the police can't ever help, and will in all likelihood hurt even innocents. This last is the part that really stood out: even the most innocuous statements by the most innocent of people could put them in jeopardy -- it depends on context they don't control. An officer misremembering an answer could bring a conviction; so could misremembering the question. Taping interviews is no guarantee, either: even some fuzziness in the contextual information that floated by before the interview could be disastrous!
His examples are striking. "I don't know who killed Joe. Of course I didn't shoot him: I don't even own a gun -- heck, I haven't ever touched a gun in my life!" Suppose that's all perfectly true. What could possibly be incriminating about sharing that? Well, just consider an officer on the stand responding with "I never mentioned anything about a gun." Toast.
But wait, there's more! It isn't just you or officers who might make a mistake that hangs you, but anybody with whom the police might come in contact. (See the video. Oh, and here is the second half with the other fellow.)
Quite an argument for improved epistemological hygiene in our legal system -- and for very careful engagement with it. While exercising 5th amendment rights is widely associated with guilt, Duane explains that it wasn't designed for that -- it is for protecting innocent people in epistemologically perilous circumstances.
[HT: Jason]
1. Believing in God. What more needs to be said? It's stupid.
2. Claiming that human-made CO2 causes global warming.
Point one: The sun--over eons--is by far the major driver of atmospheric CO2 levels--not human industrialization over the past minuscule decades.
Point two: Temperature rise precedes the rise in CO2 because warming temperatures enable the vast ocean reservoirs to release CO2 into the atmosphere. (Sorry, Al, you've got it backwards and upside-down--there is no credible scientific evidence that human-created CO2 causes global warming!)
3. Believing anything that Al Gore says.
4. Agreeing with the health care policies of a Senator who advocates socialized medicine for Americans, but whose life is saved as a direct consequence of the virtues of what's left of free market medical care.
5. Voting for such a Senator. It's stupid.
6. Acquitting OJ Simpson of brutally slaughtering two innocent people and making such a mess on the porch.
7. Forgetting to buy tickets to see the Dancing Itos.
8. Having confidence that Hamas will adhere to the latest cease fire with Israel. Hamas hates Israel, always has, always will, and will never adhere to any civilized contractual agreement. The whole thing is stupid.
9. Calling Mel Gibson a "filmmaker" since his release of Apocalypto. He should be called "man in need of psychiatric assistance."
10. Not reading Ayn Rand. It's s......, not a wise choice.
Hooray! Last Thursday, the Vail Daily published my letter to the editor opposing the proposed personhood amendment to the Colorado constitution.
Re: "Protect reproductive rights"It's time for me to start writing op-eds on this topic, I think! Read more...
Thank you for your editorial opposing the proposed "personhood amendment" to the Colorado constitution.
Unfortunately, some people in Colorado are eager to impose their religious dogmas on others -- by whatever means necessary. They demand that everyone submit to their values, including people who disagree with their dubious interpretations of scripture, deny the morality of blind obedience to divine commands, and reject faith in God as irrational superstition -- as I do.
By any rational standard, that demand for submission is morally wrong.
These theocrats reject the very principle protecting their own freedom to worship: the separation of church and state. Under that principle, each person practices whatever faith he chooses, including none at all -- as a matter of right. He may live as he sees fit, according to his own values, without forcible interference from others. So if opposed to abortion, he can refuse any involvement with the procedure.
The proposed "personhood amendment" embodies the opposite principle: government entanglement with religion, particularly the enforcement of Biblical law. Adopting that principle would subject matters of private conscience to government meddling. Everyone who wishes to live in a free country should vigorously oppose it.
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an extraordinary woman who grew up in an East African tribal-Islamic society, experiencing first-hand the endemic brutality and repression of the culture. By virtue of her courageous spirit and questioning mind, she freed herself and fled to the West. Her autobiography, Infidel, is a truely inspirational read. I've written a review of this book that was published in the March 2008 issue of American Atheist Magazine.
You can read the review here.
One feature I like about our global economy is the range of products one can find in foreign grocery stores. (Via BBspot.)
Read more...(This post is intended for those attending OCON next week.)
Bill Perry, a good friend of Paul's and mine, will attend OCON for the first time this year. So I thought I'd introduce him in advance, so as to increase the odds of him enjoying himself immensely. You'll see him with us pretty often, I hope. Here's his picture, and his description of himself:
Bill is also an all-around excellent guy. I hope other people at the conference enjoy talking to him as much as I do!Bill is a retired prosecutor who has also been a defense attorney and a part-time judge. He is currently serving as a bailiff for a judge who is doing large civil trials. He is a serious poker player. In addition to studying Objectivism since age 15, he is interested in the Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset, and the novels of Terry Goodkind.
. . . [Y]ou might still be wondering: Can't large contributions buy political favors? They can--when politicians have power to grant special favors to special interests in the first place. In today's Washington, it's not just money that purchases favors. Politicians dispense favors for the sake of prestige (say, their name on a bridge), for the purpose of appeasing vocal critics lobbying against them, for the attempt to win your vote (say, a pet project in your district that will create jobs), etc.The title of Dr. Brook's article is "War on Free Political Speech," and the article ends with a clarion call to "restore the First Amendment" and "abolish campaign finance laws."
It's not money that corrupts--it's the lure of arbitrary political power. A true crusader against political corruption would not strip American citizens of their right to free speech; he would seek to put an end to the government's power to grant special favors to any group.
[Obama] has been freed from the necessity of spending countless hours fund-raising.The article concludes with the observation that Obama has achieved this desirable result by "snubbing the campaign finance system," which neatly encapsulates the issue the author wishes to focus on: that Obama's move could represent "the death knell of public financing."
Congratulations to Rational Jenn and her husband Brendan on the birth of their son, Sean Riordan Casey (aka "Gus")!
Jenn has done a great job of creating and maintaining the very active and like-clockwork Objectivist Roundup, a blog carnival highlighting the best posts from Objectivist bloggers each week. She created it shortly after I created my OBloggers mailing list.
I've not linked to these weekly carnivals, for the silly reason that I've not gotten in the habit. I'll try do so from here on out, however. (In fact, I'm sure to do it from here on out, as I just added it as a recurring Thursday task to Entourage. Thanks again, GTD!) You can find the full list of past carnivals from this page. (Just click on "past carnivals".) Last week's carnival can be found at The Crucible & Column.
Ah, but all of that is of minor importance compared to the health of mom and baby! Congratulations again to Jenn and Brendan -- and little Gus!
Here's another Sunday Open Thread for your enjoyment:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
Crude but funny: RyanAir CEO promises blowjobs to business class customers in a press conference:
Woe to the poor German translator!
Nothing like a rabbit that exceeds expectations!
(Via Monica.)
For more exciting animal match ups, try Lions vs. Crocodiles vs. Buffalos and Turtle vs. Cat.
The story behind this video is supposedly as follows: "These people were always finding water all over their pool deck and furniture, every time they came home, after being away for a few hours. They thought the neighborhood kids were watching for them to leave, and using the pool. However, they could never catch them doing it. So they set up their video cam and left. This is what they found..."
Some dogs really love water!
(Via Dan Rohr.)
While googling for a text relevant to my dissertation, I ran across "The Stalin Society." It describes itself in large text, next to a picture of Stalin, as follows:
The Stalin Society was formed in 1991 to defend Stalin and his work on the basis of fact and to refute capitalist, revisionist, opportunist and Trotskyist propaganda directed against him."Um, wow. (Always those damn Trotskyites!) Read more...
Sometime early in graduate school, Paul recommended that I buy EndNote, a program for managing citations in writing. Since I've found it an invaluable time-saver, particularly for large projects like my prospectus and dissertation, I'm passing on the recommendation to other academics and writers.
The program allows you to maintain a database of citations, easily insert them into your papers, and then format them in whatever format you want, e.g. Chicago 15th A. In addition to standard formats, you can customize existing formats or create your own. It handles parenthetical citations, footnotes/endnotes, and bibliographies. In addition, it allows you to make notes on sources, include keywords and abstracts, etc. So for my dissertation, EndNote has served as a master database of sources. So I know that I've skimmed, read, and/or taken notes on a source; I know what sources I need to review or read as I write each chapter; I know whether a source will likely be helpful. For me, EndNote is software that I cannot write without.
The program is available for Mac and Windows. EndNote "X1" is a bit pricey: $110 for students and $220 for non-student educators from the Academic Superstore. However, I've found that it's well-worth the price. With every paper I write, the program has saved me enormous amounts of time in preparing citations and bibliographies.
I wouldn't exactly call myself a snappy dresser; jeans are the way to go for me--that is, jeans with the waistband above my derrière, not below it.
But if I see one more young male walking down the street with an iPod in one hand and holding up his pants with the other, I just might run up behind him, and WHOMP!, down they'll go!
Chewing gum and walking at the same time is hard enough. But can you imagine the tremendous challenge facing young men today having to walk, chew gum, talk on the cell phone, select songs on the iPod, look ultra-cool and hold up their pants all at the same time?!
But being America's self-appointed Fashion Vigilante has its grave responsibilities too. When I double-checked my "Fashion Police Handbook of Citizens' Rights," I discovered (much to my dismay) that I cannot just going around WHOMPING pants with the back pockets sagging around the knees.
So I guess I'll just have to stick to exemplifying that certain jean-wearing je ne sais quoi: just-faded enough, just loose-fitting enough--but not too much!!!
And keep my hands in my own pockets. That's the civilized way to be totally groovy.
If you have a fear of heights, then don't watch this video.
And especially don't watch it in "full screen" mode (small icon near the bottom right that looks like a square with brackets).
(Via Not Totally Rad.)
Tiger Woods won the U.S. Open again. He did it right after coming back from knee surgery, the recovery from which was still causing him pain. He did it after a must-make putt for birdie in regulation to force an 18-hole playoff. He did it by making yet another birdie putt when the score was still tied after the playoff. It was brilliant. He is awe-inspiring.
My husband and I have, from time to time, wondered aloud why we tend not to root for the underdog against Tiger Woods. We decided it was from sheer admiration - we are grateful to Tiger for creating in himself someone to admire. Of course, we appreciate anyone working hard to beat a statistical favorite, as Rocco Mediate did. Statistics don't describe individuals, and individuals must always fight. On the other hand - watching someone as accomplished as Woods is as close as an atheist will ever come to worship. He is just inspiring. Inspiration is food for the soul.
Now, contrast this attitude with that shown by David Brooks in his recent New York Times column on Woods's victory. The column is a blatant demonstration of sneering at and denigrating the good because it is good.
Brooks appears to start off well. The first one-and-a-half paragraphs of his column describes Woods in positive terms. But as the column progresses, terms commonly used pejoratively creep in. "Frozen." "Stone-faced." Then it gets a little worse, as Brooks starts to employ caricature (emphasis added below):
As an adult, [Woods] is famously self-controlled. His press conferences are a string of carefully modulated banalities.And:
He's become the beau ideal for golf-loving corporate America, the personification of mental fortitude.Now clearly, Brooks recognizes Woods's greatness, because Brooks's column is also filled with unambiguously positive descriptors of Woods, just a few of which are: "focused," "embodiment of immortal excellence," "exemplar of mental discipline," "precosity" and "athletic prowess." But Brooks gives with one hand, while with the other he taketh away. For example:
[Woods] achieves, they say, perfect clarity, tranquility and flow. We're talking about somebody who is the primary spokesman for Buick, and much of the commentary about him is on the subject of his elevated spiritual capacities.Here, Brooks notes others' glowing praise for Woods -- and then belittles the praisers for their failure to note that Woods is a highly-paid spokesman for a car company. The implication: you can't use elevated terms to praise someone who trades the value of his good name and reputation for money. Snarky enough, but then Brooks does it again:
The ancients were familiar with physical courage and the priests with moral courage, but in this over-communicated age when mortals feel perpetually addled, Woods is the symbol of mental willpower. He is, in addition, competitive, ruthless, unsatisfied by success and honest about his own failings.This paragraph reminds me of the way Ayn Rand defined the conjunction "but" in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. To paraphrase, Rand explained that the conjunction "but" was to be used prior to introducing information that contradicts what would ordinarily be inferred from what was previously communicated. The first sentence of Brooks's paragraph implies that Woods is something positive, a throw-back to an era where men recognized greatness. But the second sentence is clearly meant as an insult, as a "but," because Brooks assumes (probably correctly, for most Times readers) that the column's readers share his appraisal of "competitive," "ruthless" and "unsatisfied" as derogatory terms.
You can like this model or not.I submit that the one thing a writer is aware of is that the last words penned are the most powerful in fixing in readers' minds the message the writer wishes to convey. The message in Brooks's last words? Whether you admire virtue and achievement is a mere matter of taste.
I just love to learn about how people are using their brains and turning important problems inside out to slam-dunk in some novel way.
Try this on for size: they have produced genetically-modified organisms that "feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw [...and] excrete crude oil." Isn't that outrageously cool? So much for the "finite supply of fossil fuels."
Oh, and the guys pulling this off have a nice angle aimed at those who are out to destroy industrial civilization:
What is most remarkable about what they are doing is that instead of trying to reengineer the global economy -- as is required, for example, for the use of hydrogen fuel - they are trying to make a product that is interchangeable with oil. The company claims that this "Oil 2.0" will not only be renewable but also carbon negative -- meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made.So if they go big with this, we get to enjoy the resulting cognitive dissonance in the guys who consider the invention of the internal combustion engine the low point of human history. Sweet. Read more...
According to the June 13, 2008 New York Times, government officials in Japan have instituted a mandatory program where all men and women between ages 40 and 74 must have their waistlines measured and recorded by the government. The purpose of this program is to reduce costs from obesity-related health conditions, because the government health system must pay the bills:
Under a national law that came into effect two months ago, companies and local governments must now measure the waistlines of Japanese people between the ages of 40 and 74 as part of their annual checkups. That represents more than 56 million waistlines, or about 44 percent of the entire population.The government limits are very strict -- "33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women" -- literally a "one-size-fits-all" standard.
...To reach its goals of shrinking the overweight population by 10 percent over the next four years and 25 percent over the next seven years, the government will impose financial penalties on companies and local governments that fail to meet specific targets. The country’s Ministry of Health argues that the campaign will keep the spread of diseases like diabetes and strokes in check.
The ministry also says that curbing widening waistlines will rein in a rapidly aging society's ballooning health care costs, one of the most serious and politically delicate problems facing Japan today. Most Japanese are covered under public health care or through their work.
...Kenzo Nagata, 73, a toy store owner, said he had ignored a letter summoning him to a so-called special checkup. His waistline was no one's business but his own, he said, though he volunteered that, at 32.7 inches, it fell safely below the limit. He planned to disregard the second notice that the city was scheduled to mail to the recalcitrant.Once a government starts violating individual rights by creating a "universal" health care system, this inevitably leads to further infringements of individual rights. This is not unique to Japan.
"I'm not going," he said. "I don't think that concerns me."
If Michael Moore has a toothache, it is not my responsibility to pay for his dentistry. If it were, then I would have the right to tell him not to eat sweets. I don't want that kind of government-paid medical policy. Do you?This is a question that all America should be asking.
Those immortal political cartoons depicting Congressmen as grossly-overfed gluttons is as apt today as ever. My following letter to the editor was published in the online Denver Post concerning this practice by which Congress wheels and deals with your money all the while tossing us a crumb with their efforts at so-called reform:
"Transparency" is a hollow solution to the adulterous system by which Congress funds its pet projects. Just because lawmakers deign to reveal their spending requests does not validate what Congress has become: a trampling free-for-all where lawmakers gorge on the wealth and individual rights of Americans.Read more...
Lawmakers truly believe it is government's proper role to meddle in every aspect of our lives, and to pay for it by expropriating the earnings of businesses and individuals.
But many Americans have taught Congress to do just that. They've said, "We want goodies, and we want them for free and we want Congress to provide them." It reminds me of my third-grade student council elections in which one boy promised all the students "steak for school lunch every day" if we elected him.
As long as Americans continue to endorse the idea that government should have any other fundamental purpose than the protection of individual rights, it will continue to be business as usual: a porkfat feeding frenzy.
Gina Liggett, Denver
Wowee. Tonight, I tried my first exercise session using the Tabata Method. (I learned of it thanks to some blogging by my old friend Joshua, under the guidance of another old friend Kirez.)
Here's how it works, according to an excellent introductory article:
It's simple: take one exercise and perform it in the following manner:I did a four-minute block of front squats -- just carrying an extra ten pounds of weights. (I didn't want to overload myself.) And yes, by the end, my face did need to be scraped off the floor. I was breathing like I'd just run a series of sprints, and my quads were quivering like a bowl of jello. (Even an hour later, my legs were still weak!) After I recovered a bit, I did a set of easy pushups on my TRX suspension system. (My shoulders felt huge afterward.) Next I did a set of bicep curls, then a set of situps. Those last three sessions were challenging, but nothing like the squats. Also, I should mention that to track my time, I used the very handy Tabata-Clock on my laptop.
1) For twenty seconds, do as many repetitions as possible.
2) Rest for ten seconds
3) Repeat seven more times!
That's it! You're done in four minutes! Oh, and that thing you're trying to brush off your face? That would be the floor.
Some time ago, I recommended the movie Lives of Others. It's a beautiful, heart-wrenching movie about life in East Germany under the watchful eye of the Stasi secret police.
The movie was so good that I thought I'd recommend it again, along with this interesting Wired article from a few months ago on the attempt to reconstruct the Stasi records, so that East Germans can learn exactly what their government recorded about their lives.
I never read anything about East Germany in my obsessive readings on communism a few years ago, but I'd like to do so, preferably a personal narrative of some kind. Any recommendations?
I recently bought a share of a cow from Isle Farms, so that I can enjoy the delights of raw milk. One share yields about a gallon per week.
Raw milk is straight from the cow, without any pasteurization (i.e. heating to kill any bacteria) or homogenization (i.e. forced straining of fats for consistency). It's what I grew up drinking as a kid, courtesy of our local dairy farmer in New Jersey. (When I was 11, my family moved to Maryland. That was the end of our raw milk, unfortunately.) From what I've read, raw milk does entail a somewhat higher risk of food borne illness than pasteurized milk, but it's still less than other ordinary foods like deli meats and hot dogs.
The regulation of raw milk is completely insane. In California, raw milk and its products like butter and cheese can be bought directly from stores. That's ideal. However, in many states, the sale of raw milk is banned completely, as if it were cocaine. (Not that I'm in favor of the drug war, but raw milk is not on par with addictive drugs, no matter how tasty!) In other states, distribution of raw milk is permitted but heavily regulated -- at the point of the gun, as these government raids illustrate.
Colorado is one of those regulated states. Basically, it's permissible to drink raw milk from your own cow. That allows a few small farmers across the state to sell shares of cows to people like me, who then pay a monthly boarding fee, all in order to obtain a few gallons of raw milk per month. Farmers are not permitted to sell raw milk directly to willing buyers, nor even give it away. Even under the cowshare program, farms cannot distribute butter and cheese. (I have made my own butter using these simple instructions.) Still, I'm happy that raw milk is available in Colorado at all, as it's only legal in a bare majority of states. (Here's a handy summary of the state of the law in Colorado and all other states regarding raw milk.)
The New York Times ran a story last year on the demand for raw milk in face of government regulation: Should This Milk Be Legal? It's worth a quick read, if you're interested. Also, if you'd like to learn more about pervasive government control of agriculture, Monica has a good post on that, including links to information on how to fight the attempt to impose more regulations on farmers. (Those regulations would be particularly burdensome for small farms like Isle Farms.)
As for why I'm going to so much trouble to obtain raw milk, I have two reasons. First, it tastes much better. It's deeply satisfying in a way that its equivalent of pasteurized, homogenized whole milk equivalent is not. Second, it's part of an overall change in diet. I'm consuming more protein and certain kinds of fats, and I'm trying to avoid stuffing myself full of goodness-only-knows-what from processed foods, particularly carbohydrates. I'm also interested in trying natural grass-fed beef, likely from this local supplier, as I have worries about the inappropriate feed given to cows intended for consumption. (I'm also interested in more natural forms of other meats like pork, lamb, and chicken.)
I'm quite pleased with the change in my diet already. The food tastes better to me, and I've lost my gnawing cravings for sugar. That's definitely good news.
Someone sent me the following excellent OpEd on Senator Ted Kennedy and universal health care from the June 9, 2008 edition of Capitalism Magazine. It was written by Dr. Richard Parker, a Dallas physician. I've already sent this to interested physicians on my own mailing list and will also be posting it to the FIRM blog.
Ted Kennedy vs. Universal Healthcare: A Double IronyAfter I posted this to the FIRM blog, I received the following e-mail from a physician who trained in Canada but now works in the US. I am posting this with his permission:
by Richard Parker M.D. (Capitalism Magazine; June 9, 2008)
Senator Ted Kennedy recently underwent an operation to remove a brain tumor at Duke University. Besides Hillary Clinton, no other politician in America has devoted as much of his political career to the enslavement of physicians. The name Ted Kennedy (and Clinton) is nearly synonymous with the anti-concept "Universal Healthcare."
It was reported that Senator Kennedy chose his surgeon for this difficult operation after very careful research and consultation with his physicians in Boston. Using his free and independent judgment, Kennedy chose Dr. Allan Friedman, a surgeon renowned for his experience and expertise in the field of neuro-oncological surgery.
No government regulations restricted the Senator in this extremely important personal choice. Facing a life threatening illness, no bureaucrat forced the Senator to chose his surgeon nor hospital from a government "approved" list--a list not generated by Kennedy's independent and free judgment, but by "public servants" whose expertise is not Kennedy's life, but the arbitrary and byzantine politics of "pull", of favors owed and collected, of political pressure groups and the bitter reality of healthcare rationing. No, Kennedy was not forced to sacrifice his life, liberty nor property in the name of the so-called "greater public good."
The surgeon he chose, Dr. Allan Friedman, has freely devoted his life to treating patients with neurological tumors. Dr. Friedman wasn't coerced into medicine; his patient load is not presently rationed nor stipulated by bureaucrats. Dr. Friedman was still free to accept Senator Kennedy as his patient and was free to choose the best surgical approach for treating the Senator's tumor. No bureaucrat stipulated how many patients per day, week, month or year Dr. Friedman may accept and treat during the long decades he spent perfecting his life-saving skill. Dr. Friedman is still relatively free to use his expert judgment in the face of the awesome responsibility he assumes with each patient he treats.
Ironically, however, if Senator Kennedy succeeds in his ambition of forcing a government financed (and therefore government controlled) healthcare system onto the American people, all these life altering and personal freedoms will vanish with the strokes of a few pens in Washington. This is the reality of any government enforced healthcare system—both patients and physicians will face a vast increase in taxation and the loss of additional property (fines) and liberty (imprisonment) if they violate the morass of arbitrary and contradictory regulations that will descend on a healthcare industry that is already all but crippled with the slow but steady creep of government controls over the past 50 years.
In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand predicted one of the most pernicious aspects of so-called "Universal Healthcare"—the refusal of talented minds to be forced at the point of a gun. Dr. Hendricks, a neurosurgeon in Atlas Shrugged, describes the indignation that lead him to leave medicine:"Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? . . . I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything--except the desires of the doctors . . . . I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind--yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating room table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn."Ted Kennedy will undoubtedly continue his push for the enslavement of physicians with what remains of his political career. What he will evade, of course, is that his surgeon chose to go to medical school and spend decades training for and practicing neurosurgery in what is still the freest healthcare system in the world. What Kennedy will refuse to acknowledge is that under his vision of "Universal Healthcare" he would never have had the absolute freedom to choose his surgeon, nor would his surgeon have had the absolute freedom to treat him.
The fact that "Universal Healthcare" will destroy what freedoms in American medicine still remain (and thus all the Dr. Friedman's under whose virtue the fate of Kennedy's brain now lies), will be not only evaded but explicitly denied—never mind that Kennedy chose not to go to one of the many "industrialized countries that provide 'Universal Healthcare'." Apparently, Kennedy ignored Michael Moore's claims of the excellent healthcare provided in other "industrialized" communist and socialist nations that provide "Universal Coverage", albeit this is precisely what Kennedy seeks to bring to America at the point of a gun.
While the successful outcome of Senator Kennedy's operation depended on freedom, Kennedy has devoted his political career to legislating freedom out of existence. This is an irony that America's news media will evade, much less report.
* * *
Richard Parker is a practicing physician in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. He holds and MD from Brown and MD from Yale University. He has published in the scientific literature and has written Op-eds for the Ayn Rand Institute and Capitalism Magazine.
When I was a radiology resident at the University of Toronto, Toronto General Hospital ran short of funds. In order to ration funds the radiology department closed the MR scanner at 5 pm even for emergencies.Read more...
One evening however I was paged to interpret an emergent MRI. A member of parliament had developed acute back pain and we fired up the MRI scanner and performed the study. He happened to be the head of the NDP (New Democratic Party). The NDP is the socialist party and evolved from the CCF party. The CCF party was founded by Tommy Douglas, the original creator of Medicare [the Canadian socialized medical system]!
Socialist leaders usually are the best fed and get the best medical care. It is easy to support socialist ideals when you are so rich that taxes and budgets are irrelevant.
Thank you for sharing this.
Yaron Brook has a new column on Forbes: From Flat World To Free World. It begins:
Considering the many jubilant boasts by "flat world" devotees in recent years, you might have been tempted to regard economic globalization as a juggernaut, powered by inexorable forces of technology and history.I particularly liked the explanation for the retreat of globalization. So... read the whole thing! Read more...
Big mistake. There's no preordained direction for the world economy--only an undetermined future that will take the shape of whatever ideas and policies we choose to uphold. The lack of an intellectual defense of capitalism has left free markets vulnerable. "The power of the state is reasserting itself," said Daniel Yergin, co-author of The Commanding Heights and a free-market optimist, in The Wall Street Journal recently.
The voters of Ireland just rejected the latest European Union treaty. But apparently, they only have the right to vote if they vote they way the EU bureaucrats want:
...Ireland is constitutionally obliged to subject all EU treaties to a popular vote. The unexpectedly strong "no" result announced Friday effectively acts as a veto.(Via Transterrestrial Musings.) Read more...
The EU's political establishment is already calling on all other members to keep ratifying the treaty through their governments alone while calculating what it will take to make Ireland vote again, only this time "yes."
..."We're told we can vote no, that the system requires unanimity. But when (a 'no' vote) actually happens, every time, the EU tells us: You really only have a right to vote yes," said Dublin travel agent Paul Brady, who voted against the treaty. "You know, I love traveling through Europe, but I don't really want to live there all the time. I'd like to stay as close to America as Europe."
Finally, I have proof that I have a real flesh and blood heart, as opposed to a tiny little lump of coal! See for yourself:
Yes, that's really my heart. Last week, I got a Coronary CT Angiogram. It's a CT scan with contrast dye that checks for any blockage in the arteries of the heart. I was serving as a test patient for Paul's group, Radiology Imaging Associates, at Swedish Hospital, where they were working out the kinks in this fabulous new kind of scan with a a new CT scanner.
The scan itself was quite easy -- except for the bit of nitroglycerin I was given. That gave me a massive migraine in about 3 second flat. It didn't abate for a number of hours, well after I'd taken my prescription Maxalt. (A headache for about 20 minutes is normal.)
Happily, my scan was perfectly clear, i.e. no narrowing of the arteries of my heart and whatsoever a calcium score of "0." In fact, the report said that I'm "below the 10th percentile for coronary calcium burden, adjusted for age and sex." So that's excellent news.
At a reasonably slim and very fit 33 years old, I wasn't too worried about finding any problems now. However, I wanted a baseline scan for future reference, given that three of my four grandparents died of heart attacks. That way, as I get scanned every ten or so years, as I plan to do, I'll be able to track any changes. Heart disease is my major long-term health concern -- and I don't trust the current conventional wisdom on diet (i.e. low fat, vegetable fats like canola oil, etc.) to steer me in the right direction. So I plan to monitor the situation directly.
Plus, now when someone claims that I have no heart, I can point them to this post!
Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute has written a good op-ed on the disturbing state of American foreign policy vis-à-vis Islamic terrorism. Read it for yourself:
Bush's War Policy: The Top Campaign Non-Issue?For an in-depth analysis of the paralyzing effects of altruism in the ongoing war against Islamic totalitarianism, I strongly recommend "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein. Read more...
By Elan Journo
It's staggering to think that as we march toward a seventh year at war, Iraq (let alone Afghanistan) is hardly an issue on the campaign trail. Of course, nobody has forgotten about the war. But there's been no substantive debate on it, either.
John McCain, echoing many conservatives, regularly touts the supposed gains of the "surge." Upon his return from visiting Iraq, he declared, "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground." Barack Obama even grudgingly conceded, at one point, that the "surge" was working. And when liberals do challenge President Bush's war policy, they complain not about its goals, but about the crushing financial cost.
The war's a backburner issue in the campaign because--strange as it may sound--critics and cheerleaders of the President's policy judge it by the same spurious benchmark. They focus myopically on whether insurgents have been kicked out, for the time being, from one street, in some neighborhood of Baghdad. If that's success, then the issue can be pushed out of mind.
But nobody would have bought that as a vision of success, in the devastating aftermath of 9/11. And nobody should buy it now. The only rational benchmark for success is whether Washington's policies have made the lives of Americans safer from the threat of Islamists. Judged by that standard, Bush's war policy is an abject failure.
Bush vowed to "pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism," and warned that either "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Bush's war policy, however, was not to target the greatest threat, but instead to minister to those in greatest need. It was to show compassion to oppressed Iraqis and Afghans, to raise them out of poverty, to give them elections.
Six-plus years into a "war on terror," Washington has done nothing to counter the spearhead of the global jihadist movement, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States has allowed it to grow stronger. Iran races to acquire nuclear weapons; it taunts and threatens our naval vessels; it arms and trains insurgents in Iraq in attacking Americans; it backs jihadists across the region--all with impunity.
What about Iraq? Four thousand-plus U.S. troops died so that hostile Iraqis could elect a new gang of anti-Americans to sit in Baghdad's parliament. Iraq's government is still dominated by Islamist groups, which still operate death squads, and it is still deep, deep in Iran's pocket.
Across the Middle East, Washington campaigned for elections in the strongholds of various Islamist groups--such as Hamas and Hezbollah--that it should have worked to destroy. Many people, true to their ideological beliefs, voted to give these groups more political power. Naturally, the jihadists feel encouraged. According to a new study, the Iranian-backed Hamas has amassed at least 80 tons of explosives in Gaza since 2007, and it has also got its hands on anti-tank weapons. So expect another Islamist war emanating from the terrorist proto-state of "Hamas-stan," which Bush's policy helped create.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to the U.S. National Intelligence Director, al Qaeda is gaining in strength and prepping new recruits who can blend into American society and attack domestic targets. Jihadists are now fighting to re-conquer Afghanistan, and to "Talibanize" large patches of Pakistan. The Afghan-Pakistan border, reports the National Intelligence Director, "serves as a staging area for al-Qaeda's attacks in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as a location for training new terrorist operatives, for attacks in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe and the United States."
This is what Bush's war policy has achieved: an enemy that has no fear of us, that spits in our face, and that is gearing up to kill more of us.
This is what a "compassionate" war policy, aimed not at defeating our enemies but at serving the welfare of Iraqis and Afghans, had to achieve. It is a policy that put their lack of freedom and lack of wealth ahead of our moral right to end the threat of Islamist aggression. Bush's policy held that it was our duty to enable these hostile peoples to vote their political conscience--while evading the fact that so many avidly support jihadist goals.
Shame on Republicans for promising to stay the same disastrous course and toss thousands more troops onto the sacrificial pyre of Iraq. Shame on Democrats for squandering the opportunity of a campaign year to offer us a real Plan B--an alternative policy that would actually combat state-sponsors of terrorism.
Each of us deserves--and should demand--more of our leaders. We deserve a foreign policy that truly upholds our right to security.
Elan Journo is a resident fellow at theAyn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.
Copyright (C) 2008 Ayn Rand Institute. All rights reserved.
Somehow, I don't think that this guy is going to pass his breathalyser test:
Plus, he might have a bit of a headache tomorrow.
"The peak of tolerance is most readily achieved by those who are not burdened by convictions."
-- American journalist Alexander Chase, Perspectives, 1966
BoingBoing says: "This short film of the Peugeot 405 T16 rally car doing a run up Pikes Peak is fantastic. I love the piano intro, the tone of the film stock, and most of all: the driving. Can you imagine what it must feel like to toss a 1,000-bhp rally car around a dirt track just inches away from certain death?"
Just watching the run from the comfort of my living room that got my heart racing! (Via Howard.)
As today is the supposedly unlucky Friday the 13th, it's a fitting day for a reminder of just how deadly magical thinking can be. Via the New York Times comes a chilling example of albinos in Tanzania hunted down and slaughtered for their supposedly magical properties:
DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania -- Samuel Mluge steps outside his office and scans the sidewalk. His pale blue eyes dart back and forth, back and forth, trying to focus. The sun used to be his main enemy, but now he has others. Mr. Mluge is an albino, and in Tanzania now there is a price for his pinkish skin. "I feel like I am being hunted," he said.As if being born with a serious genetic disorder wasn't enough of a burden in life, these people face the prospect of a gruesome death thanks to primitive superstition -- in a scientific age when men have walked on the moon. It's almost unfathomable. Read more...
Discrimination against albinos is a serious problem throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but recently in Tanzania it has taken a wicked twist: at least 19 albinos, including children, have been killed and mutilated in the past year, victims of what Tanzanian officials say is a growing criminal trade in albino body parts.
Many people in Tanzania -- and across Africa, for that matter -- believe albinos have magical powers. They stand out, often the lone white face in a black crowd, a result of a genetic condition that impairs normal skin pigmentation and strikes about 1 in 3,000 people here. Tanzanian officials say witch doctors are now marketing albino skin, bones and hair as ingredients in potions that are promised to make people rich.
...
Hooray! My letter to the editor on health care was published in the Rocky Mountain News today. (That's Colorado's second largest paper.) I was particularly happy with it, so I'm delighted that it was published.
Parents, not society, should care for kidsThe Rocky Mountain News allows comments -- and already quite a few are posted. So feel free to add your own two cents. Read more...
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
Friday, June 13, 2008
Gov. Bill Ritter touted his health-care reforms as the "building blocks" of a larger plan when he signed them into law ("Ritter signs 11 'building blocks' of health agenda," June 4). That larger plan is socialized medicine.
The principle underlying these new laws is Karl Marx's dictum, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Colorado taxpayers (the able) are now forced to fund expanded Medicaid benefits for children of less wealthy parents (the needy). Colorado health insurance buyers (the able) are now forced to fund a hearing aid benefit for children (the needy).
Colorado does not need more creeping socialism. Children are the sole responsibility of the parents who chose to bear them, not society as a whole. If unable to provide for them, parents should rely on voluntary charity, not forced welfare. If Ritter wants real reform, let him begin with those free-market principles.
The June 2, 2008 Daily Mail tells the tragic story of another patient who was denied medical care from the British National Health Service (NHS) because she wanted to pay with her own money for chemotherapy drugs that the government wouldn't pay for.
Linda O'Boyle, a 64-year old grandmother as well as an occupational therapist for the NHS developed colon cancer, and had been receiving treatment from the government health service. But when she wanted additional medication to help prolong her life (medication which was recommended by her consulting oncologist), she was told by the ironically named "National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence" that it was too expensive and she couldn't receive it.
She then attempted to pay for the necessary medication out of her own funds. But when she did, the NHS said that they would cut her off from access to government care (care which she had already paid for in the form of taxes all her life).
According to the article:
Mrs O'Boyle... is believed to be the first person to die after being denied free care because of 'co-payment', where a patient tops up treatment by paying privately for extra drugs.Her husband Brian O'Boyle, who is also a manager for the NHS system noted:
"I offered to pay for it but was told I couldn't continue with the treatment we were receiving at the hospital -- The consultant was flabbergasted -- he was very upset."Unfortunately, he had to learn about the evils of the socialized medical system they both worked for the hard way, when his own wife's life was on the line.
He added: "I was always very anti private treatment. But everything she had wasn't working and it was a last resort."
Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe.But the government is adamant on maintaining this cruel and immoral policy on egalitarian grounds:
Co-payment was blocked last year by Health Secretary Alan Johnson because he claimed it would create a two-tier Health Service.This is the real evil of socialized medicine -- it punishes people for acting in their own self-interest and on the advice of their physicians. In the British system, the government would rather that people be equal than that they actually live.
...A spokesman for the Southend trust said: 'It is explained to the patient that they can either have their treatment under the NHS or privately but not both in parallel.'
As I was reading this TUAW post on the awful (and very un-Apple-like) logo for Mobile Me, the .Mac replacement scheduled to launch in a few weeks, I finally realized why I can't say "Mobile Me" without some strange feeling of cringing mockery. For weeks now, I've known that it reminded me of something vaguely unsavory, but I just couldn't say what. Then I realized: The phrase "Mobile Me" is just too damn close to "Magical Me," the title of Gilderoy Lockhart's autobiography from Harry Potter.
Sheesh, didn't anyone at Apple read Harry Potter?
Alex Singleton of the British Telegraph made the following interesting statement about the British Libertarian party:
What it will do, like the Libertarian Party has done in the United States, is to tarnish the libertarian brand, allowing the crazier aspects of libertarian thinking to come to the fore, and achieving nothing of any merit.I don't know anything about the UK Libertarian Party so I can't comment on them. But there is the interesting issue (which Singleton did not pursue) of why the American LP has allowed the "crazier aspects" to dominate.
"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."The same is true of compromise between those who trade in genuine currency and those who trade in counterfeit money. Or between genuine defenders of freedom and the faux defenders.
The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.Read more...
1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.
2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.
3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.
(Note: While I wrote the following before Greg's amazing post on What's So Special About Obama, it does offer a serious answer to the questions, "What's the big deal about Obama? Why does he have such an effect on so many people?")
In a recent blog entry, Virginia Postrel plausibly argues that Obama's supporters -- including pundits who ought to know better -- often claim that he must not really believe his own stated policies because of his glamor, not charisma. She draws the distinction as follows:
Charisma is a personal quality that inspires followers to embrace the charismatic leader's agenda (an agenda that, in the original sense of the word charisma, is seen as divinely inspired.) Glamour, by contrast, encourages the audience to project its own yearnings onto the glamorous figure. ...That explains much of Obama's current appeal, despite his lack of any substantial record in politics, I think. People are projecting their wishes and hopes on him, rather than endorsing any concrete policies or clear vision. If that sounds interesting to you, you might want to read Postrel's a slightly longer article on the topic for The Atlantic. Read more...
When voters motivated by charisma disagree with the leader they've backed, they support him anyway and possibly even change their minds about the right policy course. When voters motivated by glamour disagree, they become disillusioned and angry.
Introducing... the NoodleCaboodle! NoodleCaboodle is a behind-the-scenes mailing list for friends of this blog. Anyone interested in and friendly to NoodleFood is welcome to subscribe, even if not always in agreement with the views of the NoodleFoodlers. The list is hosted by Google Groups, so a subscription will require the creation of an account with Google, as well as my (mostly perfunctory) approval. The list is unmoderated, but I will remove trolls and other brats from it.
As I mentioned earlier, the list is open to discussions of almost any kind. For example, NoodleFoodlers might post links to interesting articles that may or may not be blogged on NoodleFood, alerts to thoughtful responses to NoodleFood posts around the blogosphere, and so on. We might ask for advice on changes to the form or substance of NoodleFood. In addition, any subscriber would be welcome to post links to interesting articles, ask questions, raise objections, and the like. Hopefully, some of that material will become fodder for NoodleFood posts.
If you wish to subscribe, you can do so here.
The NoodleCaboodle list is definitely an experimental venture for me. It may thrive, or it may flop. I'm rationally optimistic, however. I'm also willing to allow it to go where it will, based on the interests of subscribers.
Also, thank you to everyone who suggested a name in my original post on this idea. I'll have to use Gus' delightfully devious suggestion of "The Illuminoodli" for some secret cabal in the future. But of course, only those in the cabal will know for certain that it exists.
What's the big deal about Obama? Why does he have such an effect on so many people?
Finally, someone has shown the courage to lay it all out for us! Writing in his column for the San Fransisco Chronicle, Mark Morfurd reveals that "Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway."
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.Good grief. Read more...
The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history. ...
Those attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things, these people say JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.
Now, Obama. The next step. Another try.
Jenn has a short list of the best funny questions from her kids. I was particularly amused by the request for a demonstration of sex.
Read more...Chicago police officer Keith Herrera (and FBI informant) has reportedly described some extremely shocking and disturbing behavior amongst members of the elite Special Operations Section of the Chicago Police Department.
For instance, these officers lied in official police reports to frame suspects for wrongs they did not actually commit:
As an example, Herrera said, a drug suspect might be listed in a report as refusing to surrender his gun even if he had dropped the weapon.Nor was this just the action of a few rogue officers. Officer Herrera reports that this was a policy explicitly sanctioned and encouraged by his superiors on the squad:
..."Creative writing was a certain term that bosses used to make sure that the job got done," Herrera, referring to fabrications on police reports...
"I didn't just pick up a pen and just learn how to (lie). Bosses, guys that I work with who were older than I was... It's taught to you."Even worse, some officers on that squad committed crimes themselves, including stealing and plotting murder against fellow police officers:
Herrera said he began stealing from people he arrested but decided to go to the FBI after the group's leader proposed killing two colleagues who were threatening to testify against him.Herrerra blames this atrocious behaviour on the so-called "war on drugs":
He said the ring leader, who has been charged with plotting a murder for hire, told him in a conversation he recorded for the FBI that there would be a "paint job" and if it was done right "we'd never have to paint again."
Keith Herrera told CBS' "60 Minutes" that pressure to get drug dealers and their guns off the streets led first to cutting corners and then to crime.If Herrera's accusations are correct, there are a couple of deeply disturbing implications.
...[A] government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled. ("The Nature of Government", The Virtue of Selfishness)Hence, if these officers are indeed guilty of the alleged crimes, I hope they meet the same impartial, objective justice that all criminals deserve. Read more...
We now have our two major-party presidential candidates. I think I'm going to be sick.
I've been reading about John McCain's philosophy: "To sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and to sacrifice your life to the eminence of that cause, is the noblest activity of all." Here's Barack Obama's ethic: "...we have an individual responsibility to be our brother's keeper and our sister's keeper. Each of us will have to accept responsibility...(for) sharing some measure of sacrifice."
Excuse me while I get an antacid.
Obama plans a "new course for America," where "fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity go hand in hand;" and the "chance to get a college education should... be the birthright of every American." McCain wants to "help Americans hurting from high gasoline and food costs" and "provide help to those hurt by the housing crisis." And they both want to set limits on so-called greenhouse gas emissions.
Oh, my pounding headache!
There are more--many more--platitudes on each candidate's list for saving America from itself. How is it that we have two opposing presidential candidates who are fundamentally indistinguishable?
Both McCain and Obama came of political age in a legislature where
business-as-usual is exemplified by the porkfat feeding frenzy upon American wealth and individual rights.
These politicians arrogantly believe that good government has the compassion and wisdom of a good parent. Both believe good citizens faithfully accept whatever sacrifices are extorted from them. Both believe that government has the right to meddle in every conceivable aspect of our lives.
McCain and Obama believe in the process they practice.
Neither candidate advocates anything close to the principle Ayn Rand identified as the correct role of government in a free society:
"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence..The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."As America moves closer to more statism, at least we can get some symptom relief by promoting rational ideas.... and by taking a whole lot of antacid. Read more...
(Previous in the series: The Best and Worst in Human History, Science vs. Miracles, and The Gap in Religious Thought.)
In one of his debates with the "New Atheists," Dinesh D'Souza talked about how religion demands that we move outside of ourselves and sacrifice, and alleged that atheists chafe under the moral rules of Christianity that hold them accountable. He went on to say atheism is a rebellion against that—that atheism is not really an intellectual revolt against unsubstantiated ideas, but a moral revolt against rules they simply don't like being held to. While the New Atheists have a few sharp things to say to religionists on the moral front, their response has lacked the clarity and broad force of the fundamental response that needs to be delivered.
Values vs. Subjectivism
To begin with, D'Souza's charges do have some merit because his opponents stumble badly with respect to the issue of values. Most secular thinkers subscribe to the idea that values are somehow arbitrary, relative, based in emotions like empathy or in "intuitions," subject to a collective agreement of society or to the wishes or whims of the individual. In all its varieties, such subjectivism is open to criticism because there is, in fact, an objective basis for values: What makes something good or bad is that it furthers or frustrates the goals of some agent, and the most fundamental alternative any organism can face is life or death, existence or nonexistence as a living being. This is to say, life is the ultimate yardstick by which all subsidiary goals and alternatives are measured for their value-significance.[1] Sunlight and water are valuable to the plant, which turns its leaves and grows its roots to gain those things and maintain its existence. Nuts and shelter are valuable to the squirrel, as is avoiding hungry predators. And the same is true of people: the good is that which ultimately furthers our lives.
This perspective makes it clear that values are a factual concern, not a matter of arbitrary opinion or feelings or loose "intuitions." Merely hoping, feeling, or asserting something is good can't make it stand in a positive relationship to a life, any more than declaring 2+2=5 would make that so. The true and the good are determined by the facts of reality, and we avoid grasping the facts and acting accordingly at our peril. This is why any inwardly-focused, subjectivistic conception of values is necessarily bankrupt, a threat to human life.
But for those accused of rebelling against the moral absolutes of God, there is a silver lining to be enjoyed in this lesson: the religionists are themselves guilty of the sin of moral subjectivism. The essence of subjectivism is acting on whim—wishing, assuming, feeling, or declaring that facts will align themselves with thoughts and lives. Of course, this gets it exactly backwards: thoughts and lives must align themselves with the facts because facts are absolutes to be discovered, not declared. Merely hoping or asserting something is good doesn't make it so, and it doesn't matter whether we're talking about the whim of a lone subjectivist deciding what is good or bad, the whim of an entire civilization voting on it, or the whim of a "supernatural" mind decreeing it. So the religious who claim to have an absolute morality are really only subjectivists of a supernatural stripe. The trouble for them is that their sort of subjectivism is just as false as any other: God telling Abraham that it is good to slay his innocent son Isaac doesn't make it good. His ordering the enslavement of entire peoples in the Old Testament doesn't make that good. On and on—the bottom line is that calling poison "food" doesn't make it nutritious, and pretending otherwise is to court destruction.
Determinism vs. Morality
Next, consider that we humans don't automatically act in support of our lives like squirrels and plants do. We have the power to freely choose to harm ourselves, to do the wrong thing, to not pursue the values we know are required for our existence as living organisms. We don't have instincts to tell us how to build shelter or to guide us in choosing food over poison—we have to learn those things, whether it means building a lean-to or erecting a skyscraper, and whether it means avoiding the wrong mushrooms or properly cooking a gourmet chicken dish to ensure it is not just tasty but safe. In fact, being the rational animal born without conceptual knowledge to act by, we have to learn everything we need to know about what furthers or harms our lives—and we have to choose to abide by that knowledge or perish.
This is especially important in the case of the most abstract, most fundamental knowledge that guides our choices and actions—the overarching principles which can help us to consistently pursue the values needed to maintain our existence and flourish over the span of an entire lifetime. These are moral principles like honesty, productiveness, justice, and integrity. Essentially, a proper morality consists of grasping these kinds of principles for the support of human life: i.e., recognize these basic facts and flourish, or evade them and suffer. Indeed, we need morality because we are conceptual animals. This is why moral codes have appeared wherever and whenever humans have appeared; the impact of moral values (both proper and improper) is tremendous precisely because of how fundamental they are to our existence, guiding us in myriad concrete circumstances great and small.
Just like any other matter of fact, we can approach morality rationally and scientifically, working to discover, validate, and teach each other about the relevant fundamental principles. Such a project is just as feasible—and just as challenging—as discovering and sharing the fundamental principles of engineering or economics. But of course this kind of development is only possible if we recognize the nature of the field in the first place, and this is another terrible weakness in the New Atheists and their scientific friends that prevents their giving a robust answer to the likes of D'Souza. The fashionable but unnecessary materialism and mechanistic determinism that is prevalent among them leads to the denial of the very fact that gives rise to morality in the first place: that we have volitional minds and our choices have life-and-death consequences. This denial has hobbled the scientific study of morality, leaving them looking in the wrong place and for the wrong thing. Notice the categorical error in such prominent programs as "evolutionary morality," where researchers look for moral behavior in the actions of nonvolitional, nonconceptual animals like mice and birds. And in how they search for the roots of morality in evolved behavior "modules" in brains, neglecting the basic fact that the moral is the learned and chosen—not the inbuilt and determined.[2] A sound philosophical foundation would help them be more productive and less prone to these sorts of distractions and blind alleys.
Sacrifice vs. Life
Finally, there is the most disastrous error confusing the scientific study of morality and stopping the New Atheists from knocking D'Souza out of the intellectual ring: they may challenge the existence of God, but they uncritically accept the moral standard that Christianity has injected into Western culture. That is, they accept the moral standard of altruism, literally "other-ism," a moral standard of sacrifice. This can be seen in various facets of their struggles to explain secular morality: they restrict the domain of morality to the social, they uphold sacrificial sentiments and principles of conduct, and they cite scientists who work to understand the biological basis for morality by searching for altruistic behavior in animals. (Though the scientists muddy the sacrificial core of the concept by also reflexively labeling life-serving, nonsacrificial social behaviors better characterized as cooperation, investment, and trade as "altruism." Sacrifice means surrendering a higher value for a lower one or no value at all—not giving up a lesser value to gain a greater one.) Having assumed an altruistic standard of morality, the New Atheists and most secular thinkers are likewise led to the conclusion that determining the good merely comes down to determining who or what one has a duty to sacrifice to: neighbor, family, tribe, race, society, nation, leader, species, environment, god.
But sacrifice can't be the proper standard of morality. In fact, it represents the inversion of a proper moral code because giving up values is inimical to life. Fully and consistently adhering to such a standard means a swift death, so anybody accepting the moral standard of sacrifice lives only through the inconsistency of compromising and diluting it, mixing in elements of its antithesis. But managing to survive poison by mixing it with food doesn't render it part of a healthy diet, much less a central staple. Sacrifice per se is the opposite of the good, and seeking it is irrational, so the New Atheists will forever flail in trying to scientifically support or rationally justify such an approach to morality.
Genuine virtue consists in creating values, not in surrendering them—in focusing on reality and discovering a vaccine, in searching our spiritual nature and producing a play, in building a stadium, in raising a loving family, in digging a canal, writing a textbook, cooking a meal. This understanding drives the proper response to D'Souza's charge of rebelliousness: Any healthy person armed with the correct perspective would reject the subjectivist moral code of Christianity and its enshrinement of sacrifice because it is fundamentally set against human life and happiness. Instead, we should seek a morality that is truly absolute, reality-based, scientific, and which rejects human sacrifice in its every form and degree as irrational.[3] We should seek a genuine morality of life.
Notes:
I'm Diana Hsieh, a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009.
Paul Hsieh is a physician specializing in orthopedic and emergency radiology. He blogs about science, technology, and random humorous items at GeekPress. He's a co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and regularly writes for its blog, We Stand FIRM. He has published a slew of op-eds and essays on health care policy. You can e-mail Paul at paul@paulhsieh.com, and follow him on Twitter @PaulHsieh.
Greg Perkins is a software architect working in the R&D labs at Hewlett-Packard, Boise. His degree is in mathematics and computer science. Greg hosts The Objectivism Seminar. Aside from work and philosophy, he plays jazz saxophone professionally with groups such as The Sidemen and Onomatopoeia. You can e-mail Greg at greg@eCosmos.com, and follow him on Twitter @gregperk.
Back to TOP
Tweet
Share
Stumble
Reddit
