Showing newest 49 of 80 posts from September 2009. Show older posts

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Recommendation from Craig Biddle

By Diana Hsieh

Craig Biddle, who I recently interviewed for Rationally Selfish Radio was kind enough to post a recommendation of my podcast on Principles in Practice.

Go see what he has to say -- and then check out the podcast for yourself, if you've not done so already!

Wednesday Open Thread #99

By Diana Hsieh

Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:

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.)

The Ethics of Evil

By Greg Perkins

The Objectivism Seminar is working through Dr. Leonard Peikoff's all-too-topical book, The Ominous Parallels. In it, he explores what gave rise to to the fascist, totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany -- and analyzes whether and how a fascist, totalitarian regime could emerge here in America.

Our focus this week was Chapter 4, "The Ethics of Evil" -- a reference to the implications for peoples' lives that flow from the ideas they accept about values. Topics we discussed included:

How Obama matches and doesn't match fascists in history -- an important distinction to observe.
The two fundamentally opposed approaches to morality.
How Kant carried Christianity's ethics to its climax -- and how Christianity "prepared the ground" for modern totalitarianism by entrenching three fundamental ideas in the Western mind.
Christianity's non-sacrificial ethical nod to Pagan egoism -- and how Kant expunged this.
How Kant felt he wasn't an innovator in the realm of morality, but yet he was an innovator in in an important respect: actually divorcing morality from values, with moral perfection being uninterested action devoid of any love or desire.
What evil consists in, for Kant: not self-love per-se, but giving self-love priority over morality in one's heart. Kant's version of Original Sin.
How for Kant, "It is the lot of the moral man to burn with desire and then, on principle -- the principle of duty -- to thwart it. The hallmark of the moral man is to suffer. … It is sacrifice -- sacrifice as against apathy or indifference, sacrifice continual and searing -- which is the essence of Kant's moral counsel to living men." [p.80]
How Kant did not preach Nazism (he likely would have frowned on the Nazis) -- yet he established a necessary precondition for their development.
The rise of the formal doctrine of Altruism, giving a target to sacrifice… Then Hegel's development bringing 'social relativism' to ethics -- and how the Nazis' pragmatism dovetails with it to strengthen their sacrificial, collectivist program.
Why physical coercion and persuasion are the only two methods for people to deal with one another -- and how altruism gives the use of force a moral sanction, making it not just a practical recourse, but a positive virtue (in both secular and religious forms).
How the many "mindless activists and nonideological brawlers" were nonetheless in the grip of a particular philosophy, morphing and rewriting their program, yet never altering the three fundamental ideas that their program rested on from start to end.
That the world has not learned its lesson from history, with these three fundamental ideas still spreading throughout the Western world and increasing in their potency (and damage).
And a lot more...

If this sounds interesting, you can listen in on the podcast (just download the session's MP3 directly, or listen to it with the little player on the right, or subscribe to the podcast series over on the Seminar's TalkShoe page). And if you have something to ask or add, please do pick up the book and join the discussion! We meet at 8:00pm Mountain on Mondays, for about an hour.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

RSR: Episode #10: Rules and Property Rights

By Diana Hsieh

I've just posted Episode #10 of Rationally Selfish Radio. As I mention in the introduction, I'm running a bit low on practical ethics questions for my "Philosophy in Action" podcasts. So if you have a question you'd like to ask, please e-mail it to me!

In this episode, I answer a question about whether people are obliged to respect the rules of property owners to the letter.

Listen Now

Download This Episode

Enhanced M4A File (7.4 MB)
Standard MP3 File (7.1 MB)

Ethics In Wartime

By Paul Hsieh

I don't necessarily endorse this review of two particular philosophy books, but I did find this particular passage interesting:

...Take the old classroom chestnut about the runaway trolley: should you allow it to kill five workers on the track, or divert it onto another track where it would kill only one person? There is something comfortably abstract about this problem -- it invites leisurely debate, since we know that it couldn't actually happen to us.

But then Sandel turns to a real incident that took place in 2005. A Navy SEAL operating behind enemy lines in Afghanistan came across some unarmed goatherds: should he kill them, though they hadn't done anything hostile, or let them go, and take the risk that they would warn the Taliban?

In a Hollywood movie, we know what the hero would do: he would be merciful and let the men live. And in fact, Sandel shows, Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell did let the goatherds go; then they alerted the Taliban, his unit was ambushed, and 19 American soldiers were killed.

It makes a pretty convincing case for killing innocent civilians, and Luttrell himself now regrets his impulse to do what seemed like justice: "It was the stupidest, most southern-fried, lamebrained decision I ever made in my life."

If a war is morally justified, then the resulting deaths of any civilians of the opposing country are the moral responsibility of that country's government.

For more on this topic, see:

"Q & A with Ayn Rand on the Death of Innocents in War"
and "Innocents In War?"

Monday, September 28, 2009

Foxes on Trampoline

By Diana Hsieh

I thought that I'd blogged this before, but I can't seem to find it in my archives. Even if I have though, it's still worth watching again!

Reality, Not Authority

By Diana Hsieh

In response to my story from my third podcast about a father teaching his child to evade by demanding obedience from her, Rational Jenn posted some fascinating comments on how parents often substitute their authority for that of reality. Here's a bit from her post:

Please don't misunderstand me--this is not to say that I don't exercise my parental authority. I do have it--you sort of get it automatically when the kids are very small. As they are utterly dependent upon the adults in their lives, they of course learn to rely on them for the things they need, including guidance, and they do view parents as authority figures.

But what I try to do is to never ever make my authority the sole basis for discipline. I explain my reasons--sometimes those explanations need to be provided to the child after the fact (there's that rushing out into the street example again). I try to show or tell them something about the reality of the situation and guide them through what needs to happen. And if they can't or won't do what they need to (like not biting a sibling), then I will exercise my authority and help them stop.

Parenting by Authority does encourage kids to evade. They can learn to squash their feelings, to pretend events didn't happen, and to learn how to game the system. They learn that what Dad decides is more important than what actually occurred. And they lose the ability and the chance to use their minds independently.

She then discusses some the consequences of Parenting by Authority, but for that, you'll have to read the post. (Later, Jenn posted a fascinating story on catching her son trying to evade.)

Then the discussion continued: Amy Mossoff posted on the dangers of authority-based education. In her view, "Montessori is the only widely available educational system that does not Educate by Authority." Here's an example:

The Montessori method recognizes that external reward systems such as grades are not necessary, and even harmful. Children naturally want to learn. Anyone who has observed small children can see this. The reward for good work is in the work itself, and in the accomplishment. Montessori materials are self-correcting - the children know whether they have done the work correctly without relying on a teacher's stamp of approval. The blocks of diminishing size must be stacked up from biggest to smallest or the tower will not stand. The cylinders of diminishing size must be placed in the proper holes, or they will not all fit in the puzzle.

I love that!

I'm delighted that my podcast sparked this bit of discussion. Here's my follow-up question: In dealing with other adults at work or elsewhere, do you always deal with them by reason to the greatest extent possible? Or do you sometimes lapse into mere authoritarian demands? It's easy to say "I deal with people by reason, of course!" That's the answer we want to give. However, I suspect that the intrinsicism pervasive in our culture has affected most of us to some degree or other.

Personally, I'm going to make a conscious effort to interact with other people scrupulously in "mind of reason mode" rather than "muscles of authority mode." It's not an error that I make often, but I'm pretty sure that I've slipped into it from time to time with people open to rational persuasion -- particularly when tired, frustrated, or hurried. Clearly, that's a mistake. So if I do that, I hope that someone will point that out to me -- preferably without gloating!

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Recap #60

By Diana Hsieh

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:

Monday, September 21, 2009: Thoughts from Dr. Harry Bailey by Paul Hsieh, MD
Monday, September 21, 2009: Armstrong: Republican Plans Similar To ObamaCare by Paul Hsieh, MD
Tuesday, September 22, 2009: Knife In The Back by Paul Hsieh, MD
Wednesday, September 23, 2009: John Lewis Explains Individual Rights by Paul Hsieh, MD
Wednesday, September 23, 2009: Milling: Global Medical Collapse? by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, September 24, 2009: FIRM Articles And Editorials by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, September 24, 2009: Bad Goals, Bad Solutions by Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, September 25, 2009: Ramirez Cartoon by Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, September 25, 2009: Video: First, Do No Harm by Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, September 25, 2009: Dr. Kelley's Prescription by Paul Hsieh, MD
Saturday, September 26, 2009: Turner and Armstrong On Insurance by Paul Hsieh, MD

Sunday Open Thread #98

By Diana Hsieh

Saturday, September 26, 2009

The Big Egg

By Diana Hsieh

This "big egg" video is either a wonderful spoof or a freak of nature:

(Via Faye.)

Update: Four of the six farm eggs that I cracked this morning for breakfast were double-yolkers! (Click for the full-sized image.)

Health Care: Keep Up The Pressure!

By Paul Hsieh

Supporters of free market health care reform have reason for a little cautious optimism.

First, Democrats are issuing a constant drumbeat about passing a health care bill "in the next six weeks" because they know that time is not on their side and they're getting desperate.

As this Slate piece noted:

...[T]he 6-week frame is not an accident, because something happens in 6 weeks: elections. If Democrats lose big gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, that could produce a new wave of jitters among already skittish Congressional swing Democrats...

The key Democrats know that the momentum is moving away from them, as these recent polls show:

"Public Wary of Obama on War and Health Care, Poll Finds," New York Times, 9/25/2009
"Opposition to Health Care Plan Hits New High of 56%," Rasmussen Reports, 9/18/2009

That's why they're trying to ram the health care bill through Congress during October before it's too late.

This means two things:

(1) We're winning
(2) We need to keep up the pressure

In particular, we need to continue to write letters to newspapers, send e-mail to our elected officials, disseminate information to friends and family, etc.

We need to reinforce the growing sense amongst our fellow Americans (and our politicians) that ObamaCare is bad and it's a political loser.

Our elected officials are feeling a lot of pressure to vote for ObamaCare and right now. We need to create the proper counter-pressure. If we can create and sustain the (accurate) perception that this is will be a political "hot potato" for them, with thousands of passionate voters on both sides of the issue, then they might decide that it's not worth voting for right now.

Hence, our window of opportunity is short. If we want to act, the critical time period will be these next six weeks.

As for myself, I'm going to keep writing as many OpEds as possible these next 6 weeks, then take a break after the political dust settles in early November. As always, everyone should decide for themselves what method of activism (if any) is best suited for their own personal circumstances, given the context of their lives. Activism is not any kind of self-sacrificial duty, but rather an opportunity.

If you need "intellectual ammunition" to help with the health care fight, here are some resources from three health care groups:

These sites have plenty of good material you can disseminate.

We have two powerful assets:

(1) We have the truth
(2) Most of America is on our side.

We can win.

So let's keep up the pressure!

Giving Up Before Starting

By Diana Hsieh

Over the past year, quite a few friends from Front Range Objectivism have adopted a more paleo diet, often with excellent results. As you might imagine, I'm delighted! This week, yet another FRO member asked some of us about it. I sent links to my two main blog posts about my diet: The New Diet and What I Eat. I also gave the following general advice:

The key is to change the big things about your diet first. Eliminate all grains, sugars, modern vegetable oils, and soy. Eat full-fat dairy. Eat fatty meats. Eat nuts. Eat eggs. Moderate fruit intake. Then, once you're comfortable with those big steps, you can refine your diet.

The person e-mailed us back with the following remarks:

Sugar's out. Does this mean I can never eat another Snickers Bar again? I'd rather shoot myself.

Eliminate all grains - even whole grains, then? I suppose this means wheat, rice--are beans grains? Are potatoes in? I'd rather fall on a newly sharpened blade than to never eat potatoes. No matter how you cook' em, they taste damn good! Boil 'em, fry 'em, mash 'em, bake 'em, bake 'em again. Damn, they're good. Please don't tell me they're out.

Amusing, yes -- but I can't help but see problems. Here's what I wrote in reply:

You've started by telling us the various foods that you refuse to give up. If that's going to be your approach, then you might as well not bother attempting to change your diet.

The fact is that certain foods are objectively good for you. They are conducive to health, beauty, and strength. Other foods -- namely most of what people eat today, including what they regard as healthy -- are self-destructive to varying degrees. So if you want the good effects of a truly proper diet, you're going to have to enact the requisite causes by actually eating that diet. Indulging your desires for certain foods simply because you've trained your mind and body to crave them will only frustrate your ends.

It can be somewhat hard to wean yourself off a carb addiction. Your body has to adjust itself to running on proper fuel, primarily fats. That can take few days to a few weeks. Also, you'll find that your tastes change over the course of months. However, if you're like almost everyone I know, you'll soon find that you like your new diet much, much better. You'll relish food in a new way. You'll feel better. You'll look better. You'll think the foods that you used to like are simply gross. And, if you're carb-sensitive, you'll find that any significant deviations from the diet will produce unwelcome effects.

If you "cheat" from the get-go, you'll likely never experience those benefits. Then you might wrongly suppose that the diet just didn't work for you. (That's like blaming capitalism for the failures of the mixed economy!)

Of course, if you discover that you hate a paleo diet, then you can always quit. But I think you should try it in earnest. Focus on finding good foods that you love to eat, rather than on whatever you're not eating. Allow yourself to experience what the diet has to offer. Then you can try deviating from it on occasion as a kind of experiment; that's actually very informative.

I was a major sugar addict for as long as I can remember. I loved candy, bread, and pasta with a passion. Before, I couldn't imagine giving all that up -- yet I have for over a year, happily. The health and energy benefits have been tremendous for me. More than that, I've not sacrificed one iota in terms of my pleasure in food. I enjoy food more now than I used to, precisely because I'm not feeding my carb cravings.

I never could have gotten to that delightful point if I'd declared that I'd rather poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick rather than give up Jelly Bellies.

The person in question wrote me back, in part:

Screw it.

I'm in 100%. You're right about everything you wrote to me, Diana. Thank you. ...

I needed the kick in the ass you just gave me. Thank you.

I love people who can take a much-needed kick in the rear! And I love people willing to give such kicks to me when needed, even though I might grumble a bit at the time.

Friday, September 25, 2009

RSR: Episode #9: Cosmological Arguments, Part 2

By Diana Hsieh

I've just posted Episode #9 of Rationally Selfish Radio. In this episode, I discuss the major objections to the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. Three variants of the Cosmological Argument were presented in Episode #6.

Listen Now

Download This Episode

Enhanced M4A File (14.5 MB)
Standard MP3 File (14.1 MB)

Learn More

Episode #9 Optional Readings (PDF)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand. For more on the axiom of existence, see Chapter Six on "Axiomatic Concepts." For more on the invalid distinction between necessary and contingent, see Leonard Peikoff's essay "Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy."
Cosmological Argument in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Atheism: The Case Against God by G.H. Smith
The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie.

Two Funny Animal Videos

By Diana Hsieh

(1) Tiger Cubs See First Snow: Too cute!

(2) Snow-crazed Stoat Goes Berserk: Nuts!

FIRM Articles and Editorials

By Paul Hsieh

Now that the health care issue is front-and-center on the political radar, our web designer Tod has added four new pages to the FIRM website which include a compilation (with links) of all of the health care OpEds and articles written by myself, Ari Armstrong, Brian Schwartz, Lin Zinser, etc.

So please feel free to steer people towards the list of "All Articles/Editorials", to the subpages for Ari, Brian, and myself, or to any individual pieces.

All Articles/OpEds: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org/articles.html

Ari Armstrong: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org/armstrong.html
Paul Hsieh: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org/hsieh.html
Brian Schwartz: http://www.WeStandFIRM.org/schwartz.html

The "All Articles" page lists the 44 OpEds and 3 health care articles published between January 1, 2007 (when Lin started FIRM) and September 23, 2009, listed in order of most recent to oldest. We have also included the revised 2007 version of Dr. Peikoff's "Health Care is Not A Right" as the top-most item in the Articles section. As we add more articles and OpEds, Dr. Peikoff's piece will always remain on top.

This list does not include the dozens of additional LTEs and non-health care articles and OpEds published by members of Front Range Objectivism.

So to my fellow Front Range Objectivism and FIRM writers -- thank you for all your help and support!

All Articles

Health Care is Not A Right
By Leonard Peikoff, PhD, updated by Lin Zinser in 2007
A powerful essay on the immorality of socialized medicine
(Printable PDF version)

How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
By Paul Hsieh
The Objective Standard, Fall 2009

Mandatory Insurance: Wrong For Massachusetts, Wrong For America
By Paul Hsieh
The Objective Standard, Fall 2008

Moral Health Care Vs. 'Universal Health Care'
By Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh
The Objective Standard, Winter 2007-2008

All Editorials

Republican plans for health care reform similar to Obamacare
By Ari Armstrong
Colorado Springs Gazette, September 18, 2009.

Is Your Doctor Getting Ready to Quit?
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, September 18, 2009

Restore free market to address preexisting conditions
By Linn and Ari Armstrong,
Grand Junction Free Press, September 14, 2009

Health Care Is Not a Privilege … Nor Is It a Right
By Brian T. Schwartz
Pajamas Media, September 8, 2009

The Free Market Is Not Another Form of Rationing
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, September 1, 2009

Debunking health care reform myths
By Linn and Ari Armstrong
Grand Junction Free Press, August 31, 2009

Rationing inherent in Obamacare
By Ari Armstrong
Colorado Springs Gazette, August 14, 2009

In health debate, left and right need to check premises
By Linn and Ari Armstrong
Grand Junction Free Press, August 3, 2009

The Federal Health Care Muggers
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, July 24, 2009

DeMint's health handouts violate liberty
By Linn and Ari Armstrong
Grand Junction Free Press, July 20, 2009

More poison, not an antidote: Mandating employer health insurance
By Brian T. Schwartz
Boulder Daily Camera, June 28, 2009
(Also in the Denver Daily News, August, 21 2009)

Reject political control of health care
By Linn and Ari Armstrong
Grand Junction Free Press, June 24, 2009

Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health Care
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, May 5, 2009

Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, March 22, 2009

HB 1273: Politicians cannot “guarantee” health care
By Brian T. Schwartz
Colorado Daily, March 7, 2009
(Also in the Denver Daily News, March 9, 2009)

Ayn Rand and the Tea Party Protests
By Paul Hsieh
PajamasMedia, March 2, 2009

America Doesn't Need a Health Care Czar
By Paul Hsieh
DC Examiner, February 23, 2009

Universal Healthcare and the Waistline Police
By Paul Hsieh
Christian Science Monitor, January 7, 2009

Polis vs. Polis on Cars and Health Care
By Paul Hsieh
Boulder Daily Camera, December 28, 2008

Liberty is best prescription for health care,
By Brian T. Schwartz
Rocky Mountain News, December 26, 2008

Asking For Trouble In Health Care
By Paul Hsieh
Colorado Springs Gazette, November 22, 2008

Free market reforms healthier than Amendment 56
By Paul Hsieh
Rocky Mountain News, September 19, 2008

Health Care: Unions Lie, Choice Dies,
By Brian T. Schwartz
Colorado Daily, July 14, 2008

Mandating health care coverage is a costly mistake
By Paul Hsieh
Denver Post, April 9, 2008

No Compassion in Forced Giving
By Brian T. Schwartz
Rocky Mountain News, April 6, 2008

Polis implies he'd represent the worst in us
By Brian T. Schwartz
Rocky Mountain News, February 26, 2008

"Universal" Health Care Kills
By Brian T. Schwartz
Colorado Daily, February 24, 2008
(Also in Hawaii Reporter, February 29, 2008; Salida Mountain Mail, March 3, 2008; Pueblo Chieftain, April 13, 2008)

Freedom is compassionate, force is not
By Linn and Ari Armstrong
Grand Junction Free Press, February 4, 2008

A Very Costly Health Care Solution
By Linda Gorman and Ari Armstrong
Rocky Mountain News, January 30, 2008

More Political Control of Medicine Comes With Higher Costs
By Linn and Ari Armstrong
Grand Junction Free Press, January 21, 2008

The Collective Punishment Model
By Brian T. Schwartz
TCS Daily, January 14, 2008
(Also in Colorado Springs Gazette, January 31, 2008; Rocky Mountain News, February 7, 2008; Pueblo Chieftain, February 10, 2008)

Insurance Mandates Threaten Your Health
By Linn and Ari Armstrong
Grand Junction Free Press, October 15, 2007

'Single-Payer' Health Care Is Anything but Free
By Paul Hsieh
Colorado Springs Business Journal, September 28, 2007

Government Control is Bad for Your Health, [print edition]
By Brian T. Schwartz
Rocky Mountain News, September 26, 2007

Reformers demand more labor for politically-run medicine
By Linn and Ari Armstrong
Grand Junction Free Press, September 3, 2007

Medicaid is Hazardous to Your Health, [print edition]
By Brian T. Schwartz
Daily Camera, August 26, 2007

Don't Model State Reforms on Medicaid [print edition]
By Brian T Schwartz
Denver Post, August 5, 2007

Health socializers ignore benefits of liberty, harms of controls
By Linn and Ari Armstrong
Grand Junction Free Press, June 11, 2007

Socialized Medicine is Wrong for State
By Paul Hsieh
Boulder Daily Camera, June 10, 2007

Free market holds key to ensuring quality for Coloradans
By Paul Hsieh
Rocky Mountain News, June 2, 2007

Government controls violate rights, raise costs, cut access
By Brian T. Schwartz
Rocky Mountain News, April 28, 2007

What's Right With Colorado Health Care
By Ari Armstrong
Independence Institute, April 8, 2007

Colorado Medical Socialism
By Ari Armstrong
Boulder Weekly, February 15, 2007

Government-Run Auto Repair? Yes!
By Brian T. Schwartz
Boulder Daily Camera, February 11, 2007

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Link-O-Rama

By Diana Hsieh

The Breezy, Beautiful Brazilian Leaf House: Wow wow wow, I want that!

Competing Emotions: What is abortion really like -- medically and emotionally? A reporter finds out for herself.

English Word Origins: Who doesn't love a pie chart?!?

How to Take Care of Babies: Hysterical signs from around the world. [Boo Hoo! The web site seems to have died.]

Facebook Pride and Prejudice: Accurate and funny!

Objectivist Roundup

By Diana Hsieh

Amy Mossoff has just posted latest Objectivist Roundup. Go check it out!

RSR: Episode #8: Craig Biddle on Sacrifice Versus Liberty

By Diana Hsieh

Here is Episode #8 of Rationally Selfish Radio! (Wowee! A new kind of segment!)

In this episode, I interview Craig Biddle about egoism and altruism in American culture and politics, based on his new article "The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty." That article was just published in Fall 2009 issue of The Objective Standard. Craig Biddle is the editor of The Objective Standard and the author of the delightful short book Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It.

Listen Now

Download This Episode

Enhanced M4A File (16.9 MB)
Standard MP3 File (17.4 MB)

Learn More

The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty by Craig Biddle was just published in The Objective Standard.
Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It by Craig Biddle is an excellent short introduction to the morality of rational egoism.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Two From The Undercurrent

By Paul Hsieh

The Fall 2009 issue of The Undercurrent includes two excellent articles.

"It's Not Stealing Because I Don't Want It to Be" by Rituparna Basu
Summary: FileSharing - Rationalization = Theft

"Putting a Price on Freedom" by Noah Stahl
Summary: U.S. - Freedom = Disaster

Wednesday Open Thread #97

By Diana Hsieh

Hitler's War Against Reason

By Greg Perkins

Our focus this week was Chapter 3, "Hitler's War Against Reason" -- a reference to the implications for peoples' lives that flow from the ideas they accept about knowledge and its acquisition and use. Topics we discussed included:

The connection between the rejection of reason and the use of force.
the Nazi "epistemology": the wholesale undercutting and replacement of reason as a source of knowledge and guide to action -- in favor of feelings, instincts, "will" or (as Hitler was so surprisingly breezy in putting it) whatever you want to call such things.
Irrationalism as the rejection of reason, Mysticism as the supplementing or replacement of reason, and [non-esthetic] Romanticism's existing strength in the German culture being necessary for Hitler and the Nazis to accomplish their aims.
The timeline and major philosophical players in the transition from the Enlightenment reliance on reason to its rejection for romanticism and voluntarism.
Hitler and the Nazi's profound, central reliance on and promotion of two forms of anti-reason: dogmatism and pragmatism.
How this mixture of dogmatism and pragmatism brought something new (and seemingly paradoxical) to the world: "the absolute of the moment, or the immutable which never stands still, issued by an omniscience that ceaselessly changes its mind."
A more general exploration of the subjectivism that underlies the above, how despite being present systematically since Greek times, it was able to take off and dominate a culture at this time and in this place.
The naked use of force that subjectivism/primacy-of-consciousness has always brought -- even necessitated -- in politics.
How the Nazis were utterly dependent on the groundwork laid by philosophers, merely "cashing in" on what was already in place.
And a lot more...

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

RSR: Episode #7: Career Choices

By Diana Hsieh

Here is Episode #7 of Rationally Selfish Radio!

In this episode, I answer two similar questions from college students on how to choose a career from amongst a wide variety of disparate interests as part of my "Philosophy in Action" series.

Listen Now

Download This Episode

Enhanced M4A File (13.5 MB)
Standard MP3 File (13.0 MB)

Sweden Lowers Income Taxes

By Paul Hsieh

Sweden's government has just announced that it will lower income taxes in order to stimulate economic growth.

This is the same country that refused to bail out the Saab motor company.

You know that the US is in trouble when Sweden is acting more capitalist that the United States!

John Lewis Explains Individual Rights

By Paul Hsieh

On September 11, 2009 CEI and the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights held an "intellectual ammunition" strategy session at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. to brief the participating in the 9/12 March on Washington on the ideas of liberty.

This video includes the presentation "Individual Rights and the Tea Party Movement" by Prof. John D. Lewis of Duke University and questions from the audience.

What an inspiring speech! Plus Dr. Lewis gives excellent practical advice for anyone who wants to fight for free market health care reform.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Link-O-Rama

By Diana Hsieh

Cracked on David Caruso: Paul and I occasionally watch CSI: Miami -- as a comedy. The show is so absurdly melodramtic -- with "H" as the exaggerated hero whose mere glance strikes fear in the heart of criminals in Miago. We can't help but laugh.

The Persuaders: Robert Cialdini and the Science of Persuasion An entertaining but brief survey of Cialdini's work on techniques of persuasion. I recommend Cialdini's book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion for psychological self-defense.

Ultimate Battle: The Snuggie vs. Slanket vs. Freedom Blanket vs. Blankoat: A review. Full disclosure: Paul and I bought slankets before it was uncool to do so.

Totalitarian Architecture of the Third Reich: I'm amazed by how clearly these building models convey the repressive state-over-individual totalitarianism of the Third Reich.

Steve Jobs on Apple

By Diana Hsieh

Wow, this Fortune interview with Steve Jobs is chock full of insightful gems. Here's some of my favorites:

On Apple's connection with the consumer

"We did iTunes because we all love music. We made what we thought was the best jukebox in iTunes. Then we all wanted to carry our whole music libraries around with us. The team worked really hard. And the reason that they worked so hard is because we all wanted one. You know? I mean, the first few hundred customers were us.

"It's not about pop culture, and it's not about fooling people, and it's not about convincing people that they want something they don't. We figure out what we want. And I think we're pretty good at having the right discipline to think through whether a lot of other people are going to want it, too. That's what we get paid to do.

"So you can't go out and ask people, you know, what the next big [thing.] There's a great quote by Henry Ford, right? He said, 'If I'd have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me "A faster horse."'"

Too often, companies simply chase what consumers already want. The best companies offer us values that we've never dreamed of before. Such new values integrate so well into our lives that, in very short order, we cannot imagine ourselves without them. Apple has done that consistently, most notably with the iPhone. If I gave it up, I'd have to radically change the way I work and live.

On Apple's focus

"Apple is a $30 billion company, yet we've got less than 30 major products. I don't know if that's ever been done before. Certainly the great consumer electronics companies of the past had thousands of products. We tend to focus much more. People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully.

That same principle applies to individuals too. We have to choose what we do -- and what we don't do -- wisely. We have to choose the activities where we have a competitive advantage -- and outsource or forgo the rest.

On his marathon Monday meetings

"When you hire really good people you have to give them a piece of the business and let them run with it. That doesn't mean I don't get to kibitz a lot. But the reason you're hiring them is because you're going to give them the reins. I want [them] making as good or better decisions than I would. So the way to do that is to have them know everything, not just in their part of the business, but in every part of the business.

"So what we do every Monday is we review the whole business. We look at what we sold the week before. We look at every single product under development, products we're having trouble with, products where the demand is larger than we can make. All the stuff in development, we review. And we do it every single week. I put out an agenda -- 80% is the same as it was the last week, and we just walk down it every single week.

"We don't have a lot of process at Apple, but that's one of the few things we do just to all stay on the same page."

Ah, my favorite remark!

To demand that employees conform to processes is to impose mind-numbing, productivity-killing, self-esteem-crushing bureaucracy on them. A bureaucratic company is focused on enacting certain fixed means -- rather than on accomplishing its goals by the best means possible. The result is much wasted time, effort, and money. In contrast, notice that Jobs focuses on Apple's goals in his Monday review. In fact, his Monday meeting seems like a company level GTD weekly review. It's about production, including giving employees the information they need to solve problems, not about conformity to process.

A bureaucratic company is a company that doesn't trust its employees to make good decisions. The result is stagnation and incompetence. If a company can't trust its employees to exercise good judgment in doing their jobs, then it needs to fire them and hire better employees. Or it needs to learn to trust them to do what they're capable of doing, including learning from mistakes. Bureaucratic focus on "process" and "policy" will drive away the most productive and capable employees -- or crush them. It's not a mode of business appropriate to rational, productive people.

Goals, goals, goals. It's got to be all about the goals.

(Via Bodarko.)

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Recap #59

By Diana Hsieh

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:

Monday, September 14, 2009: Berry On Employer-Provided Health Care and Tax Law by Paul Hsieh, MD
Monday, September 14, 2009: Richman On Preexisting Conditions by Paul Hsieh, MD
Tuesday, September 15, 2009: Krening On ObamaCare by Paul Hsieh, MD
Tuesday, September 15, 2009: Phillips on Political Magic by Paul Hsieh, MD
Wednesday, September 16, 2009: 45% Of Doctors Considering Shrugging by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, September 17, 2009: Armstrongs On Pre-Existing Conditions by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, September 17, 2009: Innovation At Risk by Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, September 18, 2009: Goodman's Ten Steps To Statism by Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, September 18, 2009: Hsieh PJM OpEd: "Is Your Doctor Getting Ready to Quit?" by Paul Hsieh, MD

Sunday Open Thread #96

By Diana Hsieh

Saturday, September 19, 2009

The Mean Kitty Song

By Diana Hsieh

I found this damn funny video via Rational Jenn many moons ago. It still cracks me up:

Like the old Jesus homepage, the funny is directed at the medium (i.e. white rap and home pages) not the content (i.e. cats and Jesus).

Friday, September 18, 2009

RSR: Episode #6: Cosmological Arguments, Part 1

By Diana Hsieh

Here is Episode #6 of Rationally Selfish Radio!

In this episode, I continue my "Teaching Files" on philosophy of religion. I present three variants of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. Objections are discussed in Episode 9.

Listen Now

Download This Episode

Enhanced M4A File (14.3 MB)
Standard MP3 File (13.8 MB)

Relevant Links:

Episode #6 Optional Readings (PDF)
Atheism: The Case Against God by G.H. Smith is an excellent critical examination of the arguments for the existence of God.
Cosmological Argument in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie is a more academic treatment of philosophy of religion.

Hsieh PJM OpEd: "Is Your Doctor Getting Ready to Quit?"

By Paul Hsieh

PajamasMedia.com just published my latest health care OpEd entitled, "Is Your Doctor Getting Ready to Quit?"

Here is the introduction:

In a recent editorial published by Investor's Business Daily, associate editor (and PJTV.com regular) Terry Jones revealed stunning poll data showing that 45 percent of American physicians "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passed the proposed ObamaCare health legislation.

As a practicing physician, I'm not surprised. These numbers mirror the sentiments I’ve heard expressed by my professional colleagues. I've been in practice for over 15 years and I've never seen physician morale as low as it is today.

Older physicians have told me that they're glad to be "getting out" and retiring soon. Medical students have asked me whether they should switch to engineering or pharmacology before it's too late. Physicians in the middle of their careers are just hoping to survive any "reform."

The same IBD poll also showed that an overwhelming majority (65 percent) of physicians were opposed to the proposed expansion of government in medicine. And they have every reason to be concerned, based on past experience...

(Read the full text of "Is Your Doctor Getting Ready to Quit?")

I've seen some people disputing the methodology of the IBD survey, citing other surveys stating that physicians support ObamaCare. I haven't looked at those other surveys (yet), so I can't comment on their specific claims.

But the broader point raised by the IBD survey is fundamentally correct -- doctors are concerned that the proposed "reform" will make their jobs and their lives more difficult. I don't know exactly how many of my colleagues will retire early or quit in frustration. But it's definitely a topic of conversation when physicians are talking amongst themselves away from their patients.

Given that more than 50% of Americans are now opposed to ObamaCare, it's not surprising that doctors feel similarly.

For a related story from a patient's perspective, please see Kevin McAllister's blog post, "Quitting Doctors".

Update: Larry Kudlow summarizes some of the major IBD findings at "What the Doctors Think".

(Crossposted from the FIRM blog.)

Myths of American History

By Diana Hsieh

Just remember this article, next time an eco-freak tells you about the peaceful natives that used to happily roam across America: Sacrificial virgins of the Mississippi -- "Archaeologists are slowly unearthing the ghastly secrets of Cahokia, an ancient city under the American heartland" -- by Andrew O'Hehir

Ever since the first Europeans came to North America, only to discover the puzzling fact that other people were already living here, the question of how to understand the Native American past has been both difficult and politically charged. For many years, American Indian life was viewed through a scrim of interconnected bigotry and romance, which simultaneously served to idealize the pre-contact societies of the Americas and to justify their destruction. Pre-Columbian life might be understood as savage and brutal darkness or an eco-conscious Eden where man lived in perfect harmony with nature. But it seemed to exist outside history, as if the native people of this continent were for some reason exempt from greed, cruelty, warfare and other near-universal characteristics of human society.

As archaeologist Timothy Pauketat's cautious but mesmerizing new book, "Cahokia: Ancient America's Great City on the Mississippi," makes clear, Cahokia -- the greatest Native American city north of Mexico -- definitely belongs to human history. (It is not "historical," in the strict sense, because the Cahokians left no written records.) At its peak in the 12th century, this settlement along the Mississippi River bottomland of western Illinois, a few miles east of modern-day St. Louis, was probably larger than London, and held economic, cultural and religious sway over a vast swath of the American heartland. Featuring a man-made central plaza covering 50 acres and the third-largest pyramid in the New World (the 100-foot-tall "Monks Mound"), Cahokia was home to at least 20,000 people. If that doesn't sound impressive from a 21st-century perspective, consider that the next city on United States territory to attain that size would be Philadelphia, some 600 years later.

In a number of critical ways, Cahokia seems to resemble other ancient cities discovered all over the world, from Mesopotamia to the Yucatán. It appears to have been arranged according to geometrical and astronomical principles (around various "Woodhenges," large, precisely positioned circles of wooden poles), and was probably governed by an elite class who commanded both political allegiance and spiritual authority. Cahokia was evidently an imperial center that abruptly exploded, flourished for more then a century and then collapsed, very likely for one or more of the usual reasons: environmental destruction, epidemics of disease, the ill will of subjugated peoples and/or outside enemies.

Some archaeologists might pussyfoot around this question more than Pauketat does, but it also seems clear that political and religious power in Cahokia revolved around another ancient tradition. Cahokians performed human sacrifice, as part of some kind of theatrical, community-wide ceremony, on a startlingly large scale unknown in North America above the valley of Mexico. Simultaneous burials of as many as 53 young women (quite possibly selected for their beauty) have been uncovered beneath Cahokia's mounds, and in some cases victims were evidently clubbed to death on the edge of a burial pit, and then fell into it. A few of them weren't dead yet when they went into the pit -- skeletons have been found with their phalanges, or finger bones, digging into the layer of sand beneath them.

Go read the whole thing.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Link-O-Rama

By Diana Hsieh

Some of these links are a bit old, as I'm trying to clear out my "To Blog" bookmarks. I need some better way to manage the stuff the I'd like to blog. Too often, I'm just filing and forgetting material that should be blogged in a week or so -- or that I should throw into a Link-O-Rama when I have a spare minute.

Rationing inherent in Obamacare: an op-ed by Ari Armstrong published in the Colorado Springs Gazette. (It's a bit old, but still totally relevant.)

Tweeting all the way to the bank: How will social media make money?

You've Got Voice Mail, but Do You Care? No!

USA TODAY's best-selling books of last 15 years: Take a guess, then click the link!

Conciliatory Fighting Words: In this op-ed, written just after the controversy about the speech at Notre Dame, E.J. Dionne gushes over Obama's deep religiosity. Unfortunately, he's got a point.

Objectivist Roundup

By Diana Hsieh

ReasonPharm has the latest edition of the Objectivist Roundup. Go check it out!

Free Passes for Obama from the Liberal Media

By Diana Hsieh

Surprise, surprise! After much heavy criticism of Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, the media is giving Obama's equivalent faith-based office a free pass -- meaning little coverage and less criticism. Mollie Ziegler Hemingway has the scoop in this Wall Street Journal op-ed: Faith-Based Double Standards.

Here's the worst part:

This scant media attention is all the more incredible given that, as Americans United for Separation of Church and State has noted, Mr. Obama has left "the entire architecture of the Bush Faith-Based Initiative intact—every rule, every regulation, every executive order." More controversially, the office has become a major hub of political outreach. In frequent conference calls, the administration informs faith-based leaders of its policy initiatives, as when it recently asked rabbis around the country to give sermons on health-care reform during the coming high holiday season. Representatives from politically important religious groups have been appointed to a 25-member religious advisory council. The office was also involved in drafting President Obama's June speech delivered from Cairo calling for alliances with Muslims.

I was dismayed to read about the willingness of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to play Obama's game:

Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, was a vocal critic of Mr. Bush's faith-based office. Now, under Mr. Obama, he serves on the advisory council's task force to improve the functioning of the office. Explaining his turnaround, he said he doesn't view Mr. Obama's office as partisan—the way Mr. Bush's was. But acknowledging that there was no substantive difference between the offices yet, Mr. Lynn said: "We have a guarded optimism that when the advisory council, Justice and the White House act and get down to the nitty gritty, they will make this a constitutionally protected program. However, we have no proof of that and no guarantee."

I am not satisfied with AU's response here. Hence, although I've contributed to them in the past, they won't get another cent from me.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

The Totalitarian Universe

By Greg Perkins

Our focus this week was Chapter 2, "The Totalitarian Universe" -- a reference to the implications for peoples' lives that flow from the metaphysical ideas they accept about the nature of reality. Topics we discussed included:

The complex, centuries-long development in the history of philosophy involving dozens of figures that brought about modern German culture and its Nazi climax -- boiled down to the the essential turning points found in three major philosophors: Plato, Kant, and Hegel.
Plato's metaphysics and what it says about men, ethics, and politics -- how the implications in politics mean some men must rule others.
The fundamental contrast Aristotle offered.
The points at when Plato's and Aristotle's contrasting outlooks alternately dominated cultures, and how Kant's innovations drove the most recent transition to an essentially Platonic outlook.
The difference between Plato and Kant -- how Kant "purified" Plato epistemologically and ethically.
How Kant and Aristotle are similar in their professed political ideas not expressing the implications of their metaphysics/epistemology (and how later thinkers in their lines went on to develop those implications).
The role of Hegel as a post-Kantian Platonist; how he "purified" the Kant and made Plato's totalitarian blueprint pale by comparison.
The forms in which Hegel's ideas propagated -- Fascist Italy vs. Nazi Germany -- as well as the ways in which Hegel's ideas were secularized and made more materialistic and seemingly scientific. (Social Darwinism with Hitler, and class/economic determinism with Marx).
And a lot more...

Wednesday Open Thread #95

By Diana Hsieh

Podcast Downloads

By Diana Hsieh

One of my podcast listeners wrote to me this morning saying that he'd had trouble downloading my latest podcast. My host -- podbean.com -- seemed slow. It seems okay now, however.

If you have similar problems, now or in the future, please drop me an e-mail. I can switch hosts, if necessary.

Amit Ghate OpEd on Principled Government

By Paul Hsieh

PajamasMedia has published Amit Ghate's latest OpEd, "We Need a Return to Principled Government".

Here is the introduction:

It's widely recognized that our government is in dire shape. Our annual deficits are in the trillions of dollars. Unfunded entitlement programs run many times that. Lobbyists and earmarking rule Washington. Special interests, including public-sector unions, environmental groups, the AARP, and countless others, vie against one another for exorbitant privileges -- all meted out at taxpayers' expense.

Our most responsible mainstream news venues, like Forbes and the Wall Street Journal, often carry stories exposing the sobering facts. The analyses are penetrating, succinct, and eloquent. But the recommendations? Timid and trite. The best they can offer is to advise moderation: slow the growth of government here, cut back a program there, oppose a few details of the most onerous regulations, but basically resign oneself to the status quo.

It wasn't always so. When faced with more difficult problems, our Founding Fathers imagined, created, and then fought for a radically new idea of government. Why were they able to do so, when our modern leaders and pundits can't?...

(Read the full text of "We Need a Return to Principled Government".)

Please feel free to link to it, leave supportive comments, and e-mail it to friends, family, elected officials, etc.

Congratulations, Amit!

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

RSR: Episode #5: Two Internal Conflicts

By Diana Hsieh

Here is Episode #5 of Rationally Selfish Radio.

In this episode, I discuss two questions of practical ethics as part of my "Philosophy in Action" series. The first concerns the morality of accepting an inheritance, while the second concerns a moral conflict about doing agreed-upon work.

Listen Now

Download This Episode

Enhanced M4A File (10.4 MB)
Standard MP3 File (10.0 MB)

Learn More

Francisco's speech on money can be found in either Atlas Shrugged or For the New Intellectual by Ayn Rand.
Tara Smith's excellent discussion of generosity is in Chapter Ten of her most recent book, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

NetFlix

By Diana Hsieh

If you're not already a NetFlix customer but you'd like to be, you can get a full month free if you use this link. Their usual trial period is two weeks.

Sadly, I don't think that I get anything in return! Boo Hoo! I want a bonus rental!

Link-O-Rama

By Diana Hsieh

Mythbusting: Ayn Rand, Mommies, and Children by Rational Jenn. Jenn provides good answers to the standard misplaced criticisms.

Why Can't She Walk to School?: I'm floored by this NY Times article on how parents today won't allow their children to walk even a few blocks to school due to totally overblown fears of abduction. I knew that norms had changed for the worse, but I never imagined that they'd become so completely stifling.

Let Me Explain: Internet humor is reaching new heights. It's not just transcribed jokes any longer; it's increasingly capitalizing on the distinctive features of the medium -- in this case, on Craig's List.

Atlas Shrugged Relevant for Modern Times: An op-ed by Ari Armstrong on the relevance of Ayn Rand's novel, published in the Longmont newspaper. It mentions Front Range Objectivism's upcoming Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups.

The Objective Standard: Fall 2009

By Diana Hsieh

Yet another great issue of The Objective Standard will be arriving at my door soon:

Dear Subscribers and Friends of The Objective Standard,

The print edition of the Fall issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, we are making John David Lewis's article "Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda" available on our website early and for free.

[Note from DMH: Craig Biddle has also made Paul's article How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability available for free too. Thanks, Craig!]

The contents of the Fall issue are:
From the Editor

Letters and Replies
ARTICLES
Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David Lewis

America's Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein

An Unwinnable War?
by Elan Journo

The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig Biddle

The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael Dahlen

How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul Hsieh

How Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig Biddle
BOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein Federman

The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

Fred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott Holleran

The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not subscribe today? You can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151.

Yours,

Craig Biddle, Editor
The Objective Standard
www.theobjectivestandard.com

Monday, September 14, 2009

Link-O-Rama

By Diana Hsieh

Denver 9/12 Rally: Freedom Forever: Ari Armstrong posts his interviews from the 9/12 Tea Party in Denver.

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America': "A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer." Wow.

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit by Peter Robinson. Wow, wow, wow, and more wow.

Doug Krening on ObamaCare

By Diana Hsieh

Doug Krening -- a member of Front Range Objectivism and supporter of FIRM -- published this excellent letter in the Sunday, September 13th edition of The Denver Post:

Re: "Lead the way, Mr. President," Sept. 9 editorial.

The issue of whether President Obama supports a public option is a red herring. The proposed health care reforms, even without a public option, will devastate the quality of health care in the U.S.

President Obama has portrayed a false alternative: more government involvement or no reform at all. Yet there are other options.

The only reforms that will address the actual problems with our health system are removal of the government mandates and tax distortions, which are the cause of the rising cost of health care.

The only way to control costs is to restore the free market in health care. This is imperative both between consumers and providers as well as between consumers and insurance companies.

The government should take a cue from doctors and adopt the creed "First, do no harm." Increased government involvement in health care would be extraordinarily harmful to the well-being of all Americans.

Doug Krening, Larkspur

Great job, Doug!

Hsieh TOS Article: How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability

By Paul Hsieh

The forthcoming Fall 2009 issue of The Objective Standard will include my latest article, "How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability".

Editor Craig Biddle summarizes the theme as follows:

...[C]ontrary to proposals being put forth by Republicans, a genuinely free market in health insurance is not only moral, in that it respects the rights of producers and consumers, but also practical, in that it enables businessmen to solve problems for profit -- which leads to more and better products and services at lower prices for consumers.

As Diana has noted in her blog, the Republicans are crawling all over themselves to "me-too" the Democrats on this issue of pre-existing conditions, rather than offering principled opposition.

John Lewis makes a similar point in his article, "Obama's Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda", also appearing in the Fall 2009 issue:

...The protests and the polls are clear: Americans have, by and large, rejected the radical leftist agenda. But the issue is not yet closed. The Democrats have one last resource -- one secret weapon -- with which they can save their plans while avoiding political suicide in the next election. That weapon is the Republicans.

If the Republicans compromise -- if they accept federally-mandated health insurance in the guise of a "co-op" or the like, or a cap-and-trade bill that is marginally less draconian than the Democratic version -- they will have once again capitulated to their opponents, abandoned liberty, and ruined the opportunity to redirect this nation toward its founding moral principle: individual rights, protected under a constitution in a free republic.

As a result of the current political crisis, Craig has graciously chosen to make my article available for free to subscribers and non-subscribers alike.

So if you are inclined, please feel free to forward the article link to friends, family, colleagues, and/or elected officials:

"How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability"

And if you're not already a subscriber to The Objective Standard, give it a look!

(For more information, see "What Is TOS?")

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Recap #58

By Diana Hsieh

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:

Monday, September 7, 2009: 39 Fallacies About Health Care by Paul Hsieh, MD
Monday, September 7, 2009: Medical Alert: Women and Thigh Fractures by Paul Hsieh, MD
Tuesday, September 8, 2009: AAPS Warns What "Reform" Really Means by Paul Hsieh, MD
Wednesday, September 9, 2009: Schwartz PJM OpEd: Health Care Is Not A Privilege, Nor A Right by Paul Hsieh, MD
Thursday, September 10, 2009: Whose Business Is Your Health Care? by Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, September 11, 2009: Hsieh TOS Article: "How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability" by Paul Hsieh, MD

Sunday Open Thread #94

By Diana Hsieh

Saturday, September 12, 2009

9/12 Tea Parties

By Diana Hsieh

Lin Zinser of the Ayn Rand Center sent me these pictures of the 9/12 Tea Party in Washington, DC. Yaron Brook was a speaker.

Notice the sheer hugeosity of the crowd! (Click on the pictures for larger versions.)

The 9/12 Tea Party Rally in Denver probably had about 2,000 people. I couldn't get a good picture of the crowd, unfortunately. But here's the best I took:

Hannah Krening and I quickly handed out 500 half-page flyers in a half hour. One side advertised our upcoming Atlas Shrugged Reading Groups, while the other had information on FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine). I could have easily handed out 200 more flyers, so next time I'll bring more! Many people were eager for them -- and eager to tell me about their love of Atlas Shrugged. In addition, Kirk and others from the Auraria Campus Objectivists passed out flyers for Craig Biddle's September 21st campus talk on the morality of capitalism.

Yes, I saw some anti-abortion, anti-immigration, god-and-country types in the crowd. Overall though, people seemed receptive and interested. It was a nearly perfect target audience for us. I strongly encourage other Objectivists to attend tea party rallies in their own area in order to promote the ideas of Objectivism. For example, you can advertise your local Objectivist group, if that exists. You can distribute copies of or flyers for The Undercurrent. You can pass out flyers for the Ayn Rand Institute or The Objective Standard. It's easy; it's quick; it's even a bit fun.

Don't let these opportunities go to waste! They will not last forever!

Linkbar

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

By Greg Perkins

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Paul Hsieh

Monday, September 28, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

Sunday, September 27, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

Saturday, September 26, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Paul Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

Friday, September 25, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

By Paul Hsieh

Thursday, September 24, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

By Paul Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

By Greg Perkins

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Paul Hsieh

By Paul Hsieh

Monday, September 21, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

Sunday, September 20, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

Saturday, September 19, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

Friday, September 18, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Paul Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

Thursday, September 17, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

By Greg Perkins

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

By Paul Hsieh

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

Monday, September 14, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

By Paul Hsieh

Sunday, September 13, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

By Diana Hsieh

Saturday, September 12, 2009

By Diana Hsieh

Subscribe to Blog RSS

Subscribe to Comments RSS

Advertisement: Audible.com

Subscribe to Podcasts in ITunes

Welcome to NoodleFood!

Search NoodleFood

Recent Comments

Labels

Blogroll: Favorites

Blogroll: Objectivists

Blog Archive

Subscribe to
Blog RSS

Subscribe to
Comments RSS