Saturday, March 30, 2002 Primacy of Evasion and Lies of Omission By Diana Hsieh @ 1:44 PM On March 19th, I posted my blog entry about the relationship between self-deception and evasion to OWL. Michelle Cohen responded with an excellent analysis of the relationship between self-deception and evasion. She seems to agree with my basic understanding of evasion as "faking reality by refusing to accept what you know or suspect to be true" and self-deception as "faking reality by persuading yourself of what you know or suspect to be false." However, Michelle disputes my notion that evasion and self-deception are "two sides of the same coin." She writes: I think they are rather two degrees on the same continuum of dishonesty. Evasion is an earlier stage in the shift away from reality, while self deception is a more advanced stage. The dishonest person begins by refusing to accept what he knows to be true and continues by convincing himself that what was negated by the facts he evaded was possible. Then the person has to keep evading the facts that negate his faked reality in order to perpetuate his fantasy... Self deception depends completely on evasion. Michelle's post prompted an immediate exclamation of "Ah ha! That's it!" from me. I think her analysis really captures the nature of the relationship between evasion and self-deception. Evasion is the primary phenomena. In order to deceive ourselves into believing something, we must always first blind ourselves to what we know or suspect to be true. (Thanks Michelle!) My confusion on the relationship between self-deception and evasion resulted, I think, from the fact that self-deception is so often coupled with evasion. As Robert Campbell noted to me in a March 21st e-mail, "human beings are (understandably) uncomfortable living in an explanatory vacuum, so alternative explanations of dubious soundness are the more likely outcome." Evasion is often insufficient protection from unpleasant truths; self-deception provides an additional buffer. Over time, these two forms of dishonesty become intertwined, with self-deceptions supporting evasions and evasions supporting self-deceptions. Imagine a dishonest mother whose teenage son has just been brought home by the police for vandalizing a neighbor's fence. First, the mother must deny that her son did anything wrong. "Not my boy!" she says to herself. Then she starts seeking alternative explanations, telling herself, "Oh, he was just at the wrong place at the wrong time" or "His rowdy friend John must have put him up to it." In order to support these self-deceptions, she must evade some more, perhaps by ignoring what the officer tells her or by refusing to think about the previous times her son has been brought home by the police. These evasions might then be supported by further self-deceptions, perhaps that this officer just has it in for her boy for no good reason. Although, the evasions and self-deceptions become entangled and mutually supporting over time, the avoidance of truth is primary. Without the evasions, the self-deceptions would never be plausible. In fact, the intertwining of self-deception and evasion indicates just how dangerous such dishonesty with ourselves often is, because it is usually not an isolated, containable phenomena. Each evasion risks more self-deceptions and evasions. And each self-deception risks more evasions and self-deceptions. We cannot limit such internal dishonesty to only certain areas because, as I argued in my paper Excuses Excuses: Undermining Moral Growth in the Concealment of Wrongdoing, any such effort would bring the very facts that a person wishes to avoid into the harsh light of conscious awareness. I suspect that the primacy of avoiding truth over constructing falsehoods also applies to lies to other people. In The Truth about Lying, Stan Walters uses the term "evasion" to refer to lies of omission, while "deception" seems to refer to lies of commission. This conceptual scheme correlates very easily with the distinctions and terminology that I have been using in talking about dishonesty with oneself. In fact, it fits nicely into a four-square grid:   with self with others avoid truth evasion lies of omission pursue falsehood self-deception lies of commission I suspect that lies by omission are more fundamental than lies by commission in dishonesty with others, just as evasion is more fundamental than self-deception is dishonesty with ourselves. The first task of the deceiver of others must be to avoid revealing the truth, for without such concealment, outright falsehoods will be immediately recognized for what they are. The "explanatory vacuum" created by the avoidance and denial of truth is what then necessitates outright falsehood. So if a man wants to deceive his wife about an affair, he must first avoid telling her anything about his activities that would raise suspicion, like that he had lunch this other woman. His next task is to construct alternate explanations for his behavior, such as a big project at work that regularly keeps him late. Only by avoiding suspicious truths do the man's falsehoods have a chance of being believed. This is not to say that dishonesty with others first requires lies by omission, then a switch to lies of commission only when those evasions become inadequate. Rather, in both dishonesty with ourselves and with others, unless the truth is deliberately and consistently avoided, the contradiction between the truth and the lie will be too clear. Evasion/omission is required for self-deception/commission. So there seem to be some interesting parallels between the workings of dishonesty with ourselves and dishonesty with others. How dishonesty with others encourages dishonesty with oneself and vice versa is, however, an issue for another day. Link / Noodles / Trackback Peep Science By Diana Hsieh @ 11:21 AM The mystery of everyone's guilty springtime pleasure, marshmallow Peeps, are unlocked by a team of intrepid scientists. Link / Noodles / Trackback The No Spin Zone By Diana Hsieh @ 11:17 AM I wrote this review last week, but forgot to post it. Oops. I was a rather disappointed with Bill O'Reilly's latest book The No Spin Zone. As a fan of The O'Reilly Factor for the past few years, most of the interviews and issues were old hat to me. (In contrast, O'Reilly's earlier book, the semi-memoir The O'Reilly Factor, was a far more interesting read.) Both O'Reilly's greatest faults and strengths shine though in this new book. His anti-conceptualism is apparent in his contradictory ideas, like his stance on drugs versus alcohol. But the honesty, forthrightness, and dogged pursuit of the truth that make his show worth watching are also evident. So here's my advice: For those who are already failiar with O'Reilly's show, don't bother with this book. For those that are not, don't bother with this book either -- but do check out his show instead. Link / Noodles / Trackback Friday, March 29, 2002 Two Drinks! Heaven Forbid! By Diana Hsieh @ 10:28 PM First cigarettes got pounded. I thought fatty foods were next. But alcohol might actually be the next target. I'm growing weary already. Link / Noodles / Trackback Announcement By Diana Hsieh @ 7:48 PM I suppose I should announce that I was accepted into the Masters program in philosophy at University of Colorado at Boulder. I will be starting classes in the fall. (The 60 minute/60 mile commute will give me plenty of time to listen to a great many of the awesome lectures from The Teaching Company.) Given that I didn't conceal my interest in Ayn Rand, I shouldn't have been surprised to be rejected for the Ph.D program. Although my honesty may have cost me, I'm glad to be entering the program without an Objectivist closet wrapped around me. It got stuffy in there as an undergrad. If I decide to pursue the Ph.D, I can always reapply armed with letters of recommendation from four Boulder faculty, as well as more published writings and lectures under my belt. Link / Noodles / Trackback Memory Jumble By Diana Hsieh @ 3:54 PM As I was writing my review of Heavy Drinking (posted below), I most unpleasantly realized that certain clear, distinct, and consistent memories of Herbert Fingarette's article "Alcoholism and Self-Deception" were, in fact, entirely wrong. I read "Alcoholism and Self-Deception" in January, just a few months ago. Although my reading of the article was rushed, it was of sufficient interest that I ordered Fingarette's book on alcoholism shortly thereafter. I remembered the article as arguing against the disease concept of alcoholism and the view that problem drinkers experience a loss of control over their drinking. Instead, Fingarette argued that the central feature of alcoholism is self-deception. I even vividly remembered the story of the man who, in full knowledge of the horrible consequences of his drinking, proceeded to deceive himself into drinking again by telling himself that if he put the shot of whiskey into a glass of milk, his full stomach would protect him. Then, since that whiskey didn't affect him, he proceeded to have another. And so on. All of these recollections seemed perfectly clear and distinct. Additionally, the summary of the article that I wrote on the title page read "discusses the medical model of alcoholism, claiming that the phenomena can be better understood in terms of self-deception rather than disease." And my February 28th letter to Tim Lynch of Cato about the article involved the same interpretation. In that letter, I said "Fingarette's analysis of problem drinking in terms of self-deception rather than 'loss of control' certainly fits well with my experience with alcoholics." All seemed well. So I wrote the following in my review of Heavy Drinking: To my surprise, Heavy Drinking doesn't argue, as the earlier "Alcoholism and Self-Deception" did, that self-deception is the central feature of problem drinking. Rather, in Heavy Drinking, Fingarette's notion of drinking as a "central activity" takes center stage, while self-deception is not even mentioned. At this point, I wanted discuss the role of self-deception in problem drinking, particularly citing the whiskey-in-milk story, so I quickly perused through the article looking for it. I couldn't find it. I skimmed the article again, this time a bit more slowly. I noticed that Fingarette didn't seem to advocate self-deception as a central feature of problem drinking. Reading the article again more slowly, I noticed that the introductory paragraph claimed that one of the purposes of the paper was "to show how the widely believed by unwarranted claim that alcoholism is a disease serves to encourage self-deception" (52). Oh dear. And, the whiskey-in-milk story was nowhere to be found. Oh oh dear dear. By the time I reached the end of the paper, I knew that my clear and distinct and consistent memories of both the central thesis of the paper and the particular whiskey-in-milk story were wrong. (When I googled for whiskey milk alcoholism self-deception, I found that the whiskey-in-milk story is from Chapter 3 of AA's Big Book.) I am very puzzled by this whole experience. I can (sort of) understand misreading the central thesis of "Alcoholism and Self-Deception" because I was so rushed to finish CU Boulder application at the time. But I have absolutely no idea where I might have read the whiskey-in-milk story recently. I am desperate to find out. I don't remember reading any material on alcoholism, other than Fingarette's article, around that time. There is only one reasonable conclusion to draw: I must be going mad. Link / Noodles / Trackback Heavy Drinking By Diana Hsieh @ 3:53 PM After reading Fingarette's essay "Alcoholism and Self-Deception" in Self-Deception and Self-Understanding, I was eager for more of his unique and interesting perspective on problem drinking in Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease. In this short and very readable book, Fingarette steadily and easily demolishes the prevailing opinion that alcoholism is a disease in which the alcoholic loses control over his drinking. (The scientific community long ago abandoned this view, but it lives on as dogma through therecovery movement.) Fingarette instead explains problem drinking as the result of choices that elevate drinking into a "central activity" in the drinker's life. He argues that the motivations for the choices that make drinking a core value are as many and varied as are the individuals making them. My only serious objection to the book comes in the final chapter on social policy; Fingarette would seem to be happy to turn this country into a totalitarian state to prevent some people from making stupid choices about alcohol. Despite that flaw, Heavy Drinking presents an impressive and well-reasoned case against the disease model of problem drinking. Similar arguments, I suspect, would apply to any so-called addiction. Link / Noodles / Trackback Tenure and Retirement By Diana Hsieh @ 1:25 PM Shane Bodrero e-mailed me that professors no longer have to retire at age 65 because the government regards such mandatory retirement as age discrimination. Just as I suspected. He also sent this rather fascinating 2000 NYT article Tenure Gridlock: When Professors Choose Not to Retire on a president's attempts to reform the tenure system at Muhlenberg College. I wonder how successful those efforts have been. Most revealing was this passage: "He [the president of the college] makes it quite plain that he views older faculty members as an encumbrance," said Richard C. Hatch, 63, a chemistry professor who has been on the faculty since 1962. "He would just as well see those nearing retirement get out as soon as possible, and I guess I'm one of those." Dr. Hatch says he is looking forward to retirement at the end of the next academic year, thanks to what he calls "a very good retirement package" offered by Muhlenberg and managed by the pension fund TIAA-CREF. But he adds that he does not appreciate the feeling that he and other senior colleagues are being pushed toward the door. "I feel more and more like a dinosaur," he said. "It is more difficult to keep up with developments in the discipline, but I also find myself out of step with the attitudes that the newer faculty has towards what a college like this should be." So this ancient chemistry professor isn't really able to do his job anymore and is offered a great retirement package. But he's resentful! Amazing! Link / Noodles / Trackback Thursday, March 28, 2002 The Middle East By Diana Hsieh @ 6:53 PM Mila 18 is a fictional account of the Warsaw Uprising, in which a small number of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto fought off the Germans for a surprisingly long time. The book is a good read, but not great literature. Philosophical issues such as collaboration and the prudence of armed resistance are explored through the conflicts between the characters before the uprising. The German determination to exterminate the Jews, even at the cost of undermining their war effort, is made horrifyingly clear. The willingness of Christian Poland, including the Catholic Church, to not only stand idly by, but also actively turn Jews over to the Germans, is also evident. The characters are well-drawn, but you do not live among them as in John Hersey's novel The Wall. A novel about such an event should be overwheming, but Mila 18 did not reach those heights. Nevertheless, the book was hardly a waste of time or money; it was a good read. Reading Mila 18 does provide a convenient excuse to re-read The Wall, which is one of my favorite novels of all time. But I should probably read a historical account of the Warsaw Uprising first. Any suggestions? The right of Jews to defend themselves against those who wish to slaughter them is, sadly, no less relevant today than it was in Nazi Germany. The face of the enemy may no longer be the deluded Aryan Master Race, but the threat is the same. For our government to preach forebearance to the Israelis in the face of suicide bombers killing innocent civilians on an almost daily basis is an insult to all people who value their own lives. It is hypocricy in its worst form, particularly after 9/11. My only hope is that GW is trying to calm down the area until he can neutralize Israel's greatest threat -- Iraq -- who likely has weapons of mass destruction. (My understanding is that we need a few months to restock our supplies of weapons for a war with Iraq.) As Andrew Sullivan notes, the Arab states may be gearing up for another war on Israel. Although Israel could certainly kick all their primitive asses back to long before the stone age, the death toll may be terribly high if someone uses nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons against Israel. By knocking out Saddam, we largely eliminate that risk. Additionally, the Arab states may not be so eager to get their asses kicked again without the promise to weapons of mass destruction. And they may not want the US to join the fight either. In any case, I just hope Bush isn't really cruising down the morally indefensible path of appeasement. Link / Noodles / Trackback Eugenics By Diana Hsieh @ 9:51 AM I recently finished Mila 18 by Leon Uris, a fictional account of the Warsaw Uprising. (I'll post a review later.) So some articles on eugenics popped out at me last night. In Reason, the article Eugenics Rides a Time Machine takes peek at the eugenics of The Time Machine, comparing the ideas in the new movie to H. G. Wells' book. Even more provocative and fascinating is the article by Jonah Goldberg on NRO entitled Westminster Eugenics Show. It talks about the AKC obsession over pure dog breeds as the result of lingering eugenicist views about racial purity. Personally, I am all too familiar with the costs of focusing on purity of bloodlines and conformation in physical appearance in dogs, rather than temperament or health. One of my German Shepherds, Kate, has very bad hip dysplasia. (We adopted her from a shelter in January of 2000, when she was about 4 years old, so we didn't select the breeder.) She has just had the first of what will be three expensive surgeries. Without these surgeries, I suspect that we would have to put Kate down in about a year; the pain simply would have been unbearable for her. However, she is a stunningly beautiful dog, with a very regal appearance. She would certainly pass the AKC conformation standards. Any dog, of course, can develop expensive medical problems. But the likelihood is simply so much greater with purebreds than with mixed-breeds. I will certainly never adopt another purebred dog, for fear of yet more careless breeding. Link / Noodles / Trackback Wednesday, March 27, 2002 Whoo-Hoo-Fabulous Gay By Diana Hsieh @ 10:30 PM The What Do You Think? on gay adoption in The Onion was hysterical this week. I almost died laughing. Link / Noodles / Trackback Dishonesty in the Media By Diana Hsieh @ 10:31 AM In pursuit of a dramatic story, the Seattle times seems to have mislead its readers about whether patients in a clinical trial actually gave informed consent. Laura Landro's article gives all the details. The editor of the Seattle times responds and WSJ replies. Fascinating. But the dishonesty doesn't stop there. Pete Du Pont also has an article on OpinionJournal about environmentalists falsifying data. Mr Du Pont writes: So why the lying? It seems deceit is the only way the greens can advance their Luddite agenda. They are ideologically inspired to try to limit, slow and if possible stop economic growth, for they believe that prosperity is harmful to the environment. But our nation's and the world's environments are getting better all the time, in fact so much better so much faster that it is hard to wave the green shirt based on honest data. Subterfuge and misrepresentation are thus left to energize the greens' antiprosperity cause. Link / Noodles / Trackback Tuesday, March 26, 2002 Objectivism 101 By Diana Hsieh @ 4:57 PM I've been hard at work these past few days on my six-lecture course "Objectivism 101" to be given at the 2002 Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center. I have to turn in a detailed outline in the beginning of May, so I have about a week to work on each lecture. Of course, I'm already behind schedule. :-) I'll probably be privately posting my lecture notes in advance of the seminar so as to get some feedback from cool people. Cool people are defined as those that give me interesting answer to questions like these: Questions for Objectivists and Sympathizers: What issues do you think are absolutely critical to cover? Were there particular issues that you remember being confused over in learning the philosophy? What kinds of common misunderstandings do you see in other people new to Objectivism? Questions for Everyone Else: What would you like to learn about the philosophy? Where do your most serious reservations lie? What would make taking such a course enticing? Thanks in advance... Link / Noodles / Trackback Why Stick People Are Extinct By Diana Hsieh @ 9:42 AM My husband Paul (of GeekPress) sent me to this visual demonstration of why stick people are extinct. Seems to me that it's at least on par with some sociobiological just so stories! Link / Noodles / Trackback Monday, March 25, 2002 Marriage is Good By Diana Hsieh @ 9:11 AM Maggie Gallagher has a good piece on whether divorce is all that it's cracked up to be. (She's reviewing Hetherington's new book For Better or for Worse: Divorce Reconsidered.) Two interesting facts stand out. First, people usually aren't better off after a divorce. Many seem to be far worse off, particularly women. They are often poorer, depressed, miserable, embittered, and so forth. Second, most people don't divorce "to escape from violent hellholes" but rather because "they are lonely, bored, depressed, dissatisfied." A "minority of divorces" are the result of the three A's: adultery, abuse, and alcoholism. People make all kinds of philosophical mistakes in their marriage that make divorce seem like an attractive option. They expect the other person to fill all their needs. They develop bad habits. They don't think creatively about how to solve their problems. They dwell on minor problems, blowing them completely out of proportion. They ignore critical issues, allowing them to become entrenched and difficult to resolve. They focus on the other person's problems, rather than their own. They think that the mere change of a divorce will alleviate their troubles. Given the amazing and wondrous potential of a good marriage, such failures are depressing, precisely because they are usually so unnecessary. Link / Noodles / Trackback Sunday, March 24, 2002 Pain and Suffering By Diana Hsieh @ 11:16 PM My weekend started off grumpy and ended up in searing pain. Thankfully, the middle wasn't so bad. As for the searing pain, let me just say that I'll never again chop up hot chilies while wearing contacts. The passage of hours and multiple hand washings did not remove all the hot hot hot oils from my hands. Repeatedly sticking my fingers in my eyes in a desperate attempt to remove my contacts was not an experience I ever want to repeat. Link / Noodles / Trackback

Blog Stuff All Comments Trackback NoodleFood XML Good Stuff Meredith Brickell Ceramics Paul Hsieh's GeekPress Front Range Objectivism Ayn Rand Institute Archives 03/03/2002 - 03/09/2002 03/10/2002 - 03/16/2002 03/17/2002 - 03/23/2002 03/24/2002 - 03/30/2002 03/31/2002 - 04/06/2002 04/07/2002 - 04/13/2002 04/14/2002 - 04/20/2002 04/21/2002 - 04/27/2002 05/05/2002 - 05/11/2002 05/12/2002 - 05/18/2002 05/19/2002 - 05/25/2002 05/26/2002 - 06/01/2002 06/02/2002 - 06/08/2002 06/09/2002 - 06/15/2002 06/16/2002 - 06/22/2002 06/23/2002 - 06/29/2002 06/30/2002 - 07/06/2002 07/07/2002 - 07/13/2002 07/14/2002 - 07/20/2002 07/21/2002 - 07/27/2002 08/04/2002 - 08/10/2002 08/11/2002 - 08/17/2002 08/18/2002 - 08/24/2002 08/25/2002 - 08/31/2002 09/01/2002 - 09/07/2002 09/08/2002 - 09/14/2002 09/15/2002 - 09/21/2002 09/22/2002 - 09/28/2002 09/29/2002 - 10/05/2002 10/06/2002 - 10/12/2002 10/13/2002 - 10/19/2002 10/20/2002 - 10/26/2002 10/27/2002 - 11/02/2002 11/03/2002 - 11/09/2002 11/10/2002 - 11/16/2002 11/17/2002 - 11/23/2002 11/24/2002 - 11/30/2002 12/01/2002 - 12/07/2002 12/08/2002 - 12/14/2002 12/15/2002 - 12/21/2002 12/29/2002 - 01/04/2003 01/05/2003 - 01/11/2003 01/12/2003 - 01/18/2003 01/19/2003 - 01/25/2003 01/26/2003 - 02/01/2003 02/02/2003 - 02/08/2003 02/09/2003 - 02/15/2003 02/16/2003 - 02/22/2003 02/23/2003 - 03/01/2003 03/02/2003 - 03/08/2003 03/09/2003 - 03/15/2003 03/16/2003 - 03/22/2003 03/23/2003 - 03/29/2003 03/30/2003 - 04/05/2003 04/06/2003 - 04/12/2003 04/13/2003 - 04/19/2003 04/20/2003 - 04/26/2003 04/27/2003 - 05/03/2003 05/04/2003 - 05/10/2003 05/11/2003 - 05/17/2003 05/18/2003 - 05/24/2003 05/25/2003 - 05/31/2003 06/01/2003 - 06/07/2003 06/08/2003 - 06/14/2003 06/15/2003 - 06/21/2003 06/22/2003 - 06/28/2003 07/27/2003 - 08/02/2003 08/03/2003 - 08/09/2003 08/10/2003 - 08/16/2003 08/17/2003 - 08/23/2003 08/24/2003 - 08/30/2003 10/05/2003 - 10/11/2003 10/12/2003 - 10/18/2003 10/19/2003 - 10/25/2003 10/26/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/02/2003 - 11/08/2003 11/09/2003 - 11/15/2003 11/16/2003 - 11/22/2003 11/23/2003 - 11/29/2003 11/30/2003 - 12/06/2003 12/07/2003 - 12/13/2003 12/14/2003 - 12/20/2003 12/21/2003 - 12/27/2003 01/04/2004 - 01/10/2004 01/11/2004 - 01/17/2004 01/18/2004 - 01/24/2004 01/25/2004 - 01/31/2004 02/01/2004 - 02/07/2004 02/08/2004 - 02/14/2004 02/15/2004 - 02/21/2004 02/22/2004 - 02/28/2004 02/29/2004 - 03/06/2004 03/07/2004 - 03/13/2004 03/14/2004 - 03/20/2004 03/21/2004 - 03/27/2004 03/28/2004 - 04/03/2004 04/04/2004 - 04/10/2004 04/11/2004 - 04/17/2004 04/18/2004 - 04/24/2004 04/25/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/02/2004 - 05/08/2004 05/23/2004 - 05/29/2004 05/30/2004 - 06/05/2004 06/06/2004 - 06/12/2004 06/13/2004 - 06/19/2004 06/20/2004 - 06/26/2004 06/27/2004 - 07/03/2004 07/04/2004 - 07/10/2004 07/11/2004 - 07/17/2004 07/18/2004 - 07/24/2004 07/25/2004 - 07/31/2004 08/01/2004 - 08/07/2004 08/08/2004 - 08/14/2004 08/15/2004 - 08/21/2004 08/22/2004 - 08/28/2004 08/29/2004 - 09/04/2004 09/05/2004 - 09/11/2004 09/12/2004 - 09/18/2004 09/19/2004 - 09/25/2004 09/26/2004 - 10/02/2004 10/03/2004 - 10/09/2004 10/10/2004 - 10/16/2004 10/17/2004 - 10/23/2004 10/24/2004 - 10/30/2004 10/31/2004 - 11/06/2004 11/07/2004 - 11/13/2004 11/14/2004 - 11/20/2004 11/21/2004 - 11/27/2004 11/28/2004 - 12/04/2004 12/12/2004 - 12/18/2004 01/02/2005 - 01/08/2005 01/09/2005 - 01/15/2005 01/16/2005 - 01/22/2005 01/23/2005 - 01/29/2005 01/30/2005 - 02/05/2005 02/06/2005 - 02/12/2005 02/13/2005 - 02/19/2005 02/20/2005 - 02/26/2005 02/27/2005 - 03/05/2005 03/06/2005 - 03/12/2005 03/13/2005 - 03/19/2005 03/20/2005 - 03/26/2005 03/27/2005 - 04/02/2005 Lasagne Blogs GeekPress Best of the Web Instapundit Volokh Conspiracy Daily Dish The Bleat Impromptus Manicotti Blogs Anger Management Absolute Reason Ayn Rand Meta-Blog GeekPress Blog Without a Name Brian Schwartz Cox and Forkum Dollars and Crosses Ego A Galaxy Far, Far Away GMU Objectivist Club Greedy Capitalist Haight Speech In the Mouth of Madison Jerk Sauce John J Enright Light of Reason Marshall Sontag Live! Minority of One Mudita Journal Not A Blog Noumenal Self O.T.H.E.R.'s Blog Poor and Stupid Positive Liberty Quare Rule of Reason Presence of Mind Sid's Blog of Doom Terrible Swift Sword Venting Steam Wickens.ca Atlasphere Bloggers Objectivist Bloggers Conchiglie Blogs Dynamist Blog The Agitator The Anger of Compassion Asymmetrical Information Armed and Dangerous Banana Oil Catallaxy Files Charles Murtaugh Citizen Smash The Corner EnviroSpin Watch Eve Tushnet The Fly Bottle God of the Machine Gweilo Diaries The Idiot Villager Intel Dump Interrobang Julian's Lounge The Kolkata Libertarian Liberty and Power Locke, or Demosthenes? McBlog The Marmot's Hole Natalie Solent OxBlog Raving Atheist Reductio Ad Absurdum The Right Coast Right Wing News Samizdata Sargent Stryker Secular Islam Shoutin' Across the Pacific Tom Palmer The Truth Laid Bear Two Blowhards An Unsealed Room VodkaPundit Capellini Blogs Critical Mass Brian's Education Cranky Professor Discriminations Highered Intelligence SCSU Scholars Tightly Wound Spaghetti Blogs Joanne Jacobs EducationWeak Home School & Stuff Number 2 Pencil Fettuccine Blogs Apple Core Assigned Seat Assorted Stuff Entry Year Teacher Math Teacher Ms. Frizzle School Yard Science Teacher Teaching High School Weblogg Ed Write It Linguini Blogs Chez Miscarriage Konkadoo Loco Parentis Rational Parenting One Sixteeth Our Homeschool Journey Our Horrible Children Penne Blogs Brian Leiter Rod Long Brian Weatherson Rigatoni Blogs Criminal Appeal Is That Legal? Legal Theory Lessig Blog Mirror of Justice Punishment Theory Stephan Kinsella Unlearned Hand Macaroni Blogs Adam Smith Blog Brad DeLong EconLog Economist Marginal Revolution Rigatoni Blogs The Loom ScienceBlog Orzo Blogs Andrew Breese Terry Foote Ted O'Connor Kirez Reynolds Peter Saint-Andre Mike Shapiro Douglas Wagoner's Journal Ramen Blogs Dave Barry Fark ScrappleFace Support Amazon.com