Saturday, October 12, 2002 Contracts, Loyalty Oaths, and ARI Mailing Lists By Diana Hsieh @ 11:20 PM At the last FROG (Front Range Objectivist Group Meeting), I heard about HBL (Harry Binswanger's moderated mailing list) for the first time. I'm really not sure how it escaped my notice for so long. HBL is a tightly-regulated and expensive list, costing users $10 per month or $100 per year. But that cost is insignificant compared to the cost to one's integrity of agreeing to the "Loyalty Oath." On the HBL Policies and Etiquette page, we find: 6. Philosophic issues: The HBL is primarily for Objectivists. Full agreement with Objectivism is not required, but certain people are excluded--see the Loyalty Oath below. You need not sign or return it. If you join the list, that indicates your agreement with its provisions. The HBL Loyalty Oath I have created this list for those who are deeply and sincerely interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and its application to cultural-political issues. It is understood that Objectivism is limited to the philosophic principles expounded by Ayn Rand in the writings published during her lifetime plus those articles by other authors that she published in her own periodicals (e.g., The Objectivist) or included in her anthologies. Applications, implications, developments, and extensions of Objectivism--though they are to be encouraged and will be discussed on my list--are not, even if entirely valid, part of Objectivism. (Objectivism does not exhaust the field of rational philosophic identifications.) I do not make full agreement with Objectivism a condition of joining my list. However, I do exclude anyone who is sanctioning or supporting the enemies of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. "Enemies" include: "libertarians," moral agnostics or "tolerationists," anarchists, and those whom Ayn Rand condemned morally or who have written books or articles attacking Ayn Rand. I do not wish to publicize the myriad of anti-Objectivist individuals and organizations by giving names, so if you have questions about any such, email me privately and I will be glad to discuss it with you. If you bristle at the very idea of a "loyalty oath" and declaring certain ideological movements and individuals as "enemies," then my list is probably not for you. To join my list while concealing your sanction or support of these enemies, would be to commit a fraud. Again, if you have any questions on this policy, please let me know. There is so much wrong with this "Loyalty Oath" that I don't know where to begin. First and foremost, such loyalty oaths are deeply incompatible with intellectual honesty and integrity. They seek to bind a person's mind in advance, thereby providing substantial incentives to dismiss an issue as unworthy of investigation irresponsibly and prematurely. After all, to honestly investigate would be to risk agreeing with the enemy and violating the loyalty oath! It is difficult enough to be scrupulously objective in judging ideas given the entanglements of prior commitments, friends and foes, and so on. To increase this burden is a grave disservice to others -- and disrespectful too. But, I suspect that Binswanger is happy to so burden people, so long as it works in the favor of the "right" side. But that's a losing strategy in the long run. It creates useless sycophants rather than real intellectuals. Also, I love the fact that Ayn Rand's moral judgment reigns, as "supporting or sanctioning ... those whom Ayn Rand condemned morally" is forbidden. Heaven forbid she might ever have been wrong! But I guess that her judgment couldn't have been that good, as a number of people with whom she remained close throughout her life are now regarded as "enemies of Ayn Rand and Objectivism" because they broke with the ARI. But at least HBL's "Loyalty Oath" is more honest then Bob Stubblefield's vague and misleading "contract" for the OSG (Objectivism Study Group)! That contract claims that "the following actions will not be tolerated": fraud; e.g., claiming to speak for Objectivism or claiming as an Objectivist position a view contradicted in Objectivist literature. An example of the latter would be someone claiming that anarchy is the Objectivist political position. Another example of electronic fraud is intentionally to misrepresent the source or author of a message--or your own identity. explicit sanction of anti-Objectivist activities; e.g., posting to mailing lists run by Libertarians who "tolerate" Objectivists. I prefer not to exchange intellectual values with an individual who would lend his rationality to helping the irrational fake it. explicit sanction of anti-Objectivist principles after their nature is identified. E.g., asking why "certainty" is a valid concept is alright; but after learning the Objectivist position on certainty, it would be inappropriate to have a thread of discussion by people who share the skeptics' premise. There are other mailing lists or newsgroups for such things. I signed this contract as a freshman in college just becoming interested in Ayn Rand. I had no idea that, according to Stubblefield's twisted interpretation of this contract, lurking on MDOP (Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy run by Jimmy Wales) was not "explicit sanction of anti-Objectivist activities" but posting was. Also, both lurking and posting on Usenet groups about Objectivism like h.p.o (humanities.philosophy.objectivism) is allowed. Strange. Even after much debate and complaint about the contact, it is still the same obfuscation it ever was. (For the details of my run-in with OSG, see my first MDOP post ever: Yet Another Heretic is Created.) Oh, I almost forgot what spurred me to post on this issue in the first place. Michelle Fram-Cohen posted on her experience with HBL to OWL today. She wrote: Incidentally, I was a member of HBL for a month in 1999. I recall an interesting discussion on a new TV movie about Jean of Arc. After several members posted their well-reasoned positive evaluations of the movie, Mr. Binswanger posted a scathing comment. He announced that he turned on the TV in the middle of the movie, in the middle of a certain scene, watched for one minute, and changed the channel. According to my understanding of Objectivism, Binswanger's comment was unsubstantiated and disrespectful to the members of the list he was moderating. Ah, now that's the height of the ARI style! Link / Noodles / Trackback Friday, October 11, 2002 New Information about Front Sight and Scientology By Diana Hsieh @ 4:45 PM As a result of yesterday's posting, I was pointed to some further information about Ignatius Piazza's connection to Scientology. Some of the information below comes from a "First Family Members Only" thread entitled Please Beware ... ! ! ! on the Front Sight Alumni Board. The rest comes from the public archives of the API list. Perhaps most importantly, Piazza has repeatedly and clearly stated that Front Sight itself is not and will never be involved with any religion, Scientology included. Based on my own and others' experience, there is no reason to doubt him on this. But Piazza himself is another story -- and an important one. He does admit that he has been involved in Scientology. He says that he is "Clear," which means that he has probably spent over $100,000 to reach the alleged state of "total erasure of the reactive mind." (He also says that he has "attended Scientology services," although that is trivial.) Strangely enough however, Piazza also claims to be a Catholic. Piazza also admits that Front Sight uses "some of the business technology developed by L. Ron Hubbard." He lists other companies who do so as well, including Allstate (which had a disastrous run-in with the management system) and EarthLink (which is under fraud investigations as a result of its deep association with Scientologists). He claims that "Hubbard Business Management is the most used system of management in the world," but I have a sneaking suspicion that that's a ridiculously inflated claim. Perhaps most worrisome is Piazza's apparent evasion of multiple polite questions as to whether he is or is not a Scientologist. And also worrisome is his apparent denial of being substantially involved in Scientology in this post: Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021004103153.03754e60@pop3.norton.antivirus.> Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 10:41:00 -0700 From: Ignatius Piazza <ignatius@frontsight.com> Subject: API: Re: My last word on this [...] Your question of "are you are aren't you" cannot be answered "absolutely no" because there are shreds of minor fact woven into his pack of lies. I have attended business management courses using the business management tools of L. Ron Hubbard. So do Fortune 500 companies. I have had some Scientology services. So have some of the most successful people in the world. That's were it ends. [...] Ignatius Piazza Obtaining "Clear" is no small feat. It is not "some Scientology services," but rather part and parcel of being a Scientologist. Perhaps Piazza doesn't see it that way. Perhaps he doesn't understand the absurd contradiction of being a "Clear Catholic." I'm not sure. I'm going to write him an e-mail tonight, asking him a few blunt questions about his views on and support of Scientology. I'll explain to him why my professional integrity as a philosopher and relationship with Front Sight requires me to inquire, although I would prefer not to do so. I do hope this situation resolves well enough. Front Sight is an amazing place for firearms training, after all. Link / Noodles / Trackback Thursday, October 10, 2002 Front Sight and Scientology?!? By Diana Hsieh @ 10:46 PM Background As some of you know, I am a supporter of Front Sight, a superb firearms training facility outside of Las Vegas. As a bit of background, Paul and I went to our first course (Four Day Defensive Handgun) this past April and were completely blown away by the experience. I attended the kickoff of the Ambassador Program in August. And Paul and I are returning to Front Sight in early November to repeat the Four Day Defensive Handgun course. Both Paul and I are also "First Family" members, which means that we paid a certain amount of money up front in order to be able to take certain set of classes for free. Last night, I learned that Front Sight has something of a PR brouhaha on its hands. Ignatius Piazza send out an e-mail reporting that as of last June, "a former Front Sight instructor suddenly began to circulate hate-group propaganda to some of our staff and students on the Internet and by rumor, attacking both Front Sight and me personally." That person is former Front Sight Instructor and Range Master Dean Gamburd who has posted an article entitled "The Fourth Secret" on Arnie Lerma's anti-Scientology web site, Lermanet. The basic accusation of the article is that Ignatius Piazza "is a hard core Scientologist using the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute as his personal Scientology recruiting ground, cash generator, and to further the ultimate goals and presence of Scientology." The result has been some debate and speculation on various gun forums, like in this thread on Glock Talk and this thread on the Front Sight Alumni message board. In the e-mail, Piazza denied these allegations by saying: I am aware that he [Dean Gamburd] is attempting to establish his own firearms training organization and has taken the irresponsible approach of spreading false rumor, misrepresentation, disparagement, slander and libel to damage the good work and outstanding reputation Front Sight has established. In other words, we reasonably believe he is lying for his own personal gain, to siphon off our students and staff, and to interfere with our ability to serve you and the Second Amendment. Some current Front Sight Instructors and Range Masters have also offered their testimony in support of Front Sight. On Glocktalk Bill Carns wrote, "I've never ... had Scientology brought up in any conversation I've ever had there." Bill Haag wrote: No one at Front Sight, or connected with Front Sight or with any Front Sight affiliated organization has ever approaced me with any information about Scientology. Let me be perfectly clear for all those who would try to parse my words to find some hidden meaning where there is none. There has never been any discussion about Scientology at Front Sight or with persons associated with Front Sight. I have never been approached to learn, contribute, etc. about or to anything to do with Scientology in order to "go up the Instructor ladder." Or at any other time. These recent ravings about Front Sight and Scientology are groundless and I find them personally insulting. On Front Sight Alumni, John Woo wrote: Throughout my entire career at Front Sight, there has NEVER been any mention, attempt to recruit, or even a slight indication that Scientology was an influence. Indeed, in all the conversations and interactions I have ever had with Front Sight staff have been regarding firearms training, or some common social issue. Truthfully, the first time I have ever heard of Front Sight and Scientology even being used in the same sentence was on the Internet boards. I cannot say whether or not Naish is Scientologist. However, I can say, with 100% certainty, that Front Sight is NOT a "recuiting ground for Scientology", nor a cult, nor a subtle medium for manipulating people into Scientology's belief system. Front Sight offers firearms training. Period. (John Woo was our superb Range Master in our April Four Day Handgun course. I have no doubt that he is telling the absolute truth.) The Lack of Evidence This whole episode is rather disturbing to me, particularly as a philosopher who cares about little things like logic and evidence. Far too many people commenting in the thread on Glocktalk seem quite eager and willing to believe Dean Gamburd's accusations without any sort of solid evidence. One person called the information "interesting and highly disturbing." Another simply commented "scary." Yet another said "When I first heard he charged such and such for his different levels of membership, I had a feeling that the guy was not legit." Oh good, thanks for the "feeling"... Others are posting false rumors of their own. One said, "The way I hear it is that all of the main range masters must attend some scientolgy classes in order to keep their jobs." Another wrote, "Lets just say that in order to go up the instructors ladder they have some suited people give you readings,alone,you are not to let anyone know where you are for a week period of time, like just happen to one of their up and coming instructor. plus one instructor keeps scientology books and material out for others (wogs) to study on." No evidence whatsoever for these claims was given. The worst aspect of such comments is that they are almost entirely from people who have not actually ever attended Front Sight courses. Yet they seem determined to think ill of Front Sight; these accusations are just the latest excuse. (I've seen this pattern with respect to other issues as well, where the harshest critics of Front Sight are those with no direct knowledge of the issue or even experience taking the courses at Front Sight.) Those who have been to Front Sight were uniformly more reasonable in their assessments of the accusations. I was delighted to see that they restricted their claims to subjects of which they were actually knowledgeable. One writes: I have taken two classes at Front Sight in the past year. I was expecting the "sales pitch" to be rather hard. It was not. Basically, Piazza tells you how Front Sight started and his plans for it in the future. He then reviews the membership plans and that's it. There is no hard sell there folks. There were no Scientology pitches at all during both classes nor have I heard anything about Scientology and Front Sight except on forums like these. The training is first rate. Regarding instructors and Scientology, that is only up to speculation as far as I'm concerned. Another writes: I am not an instructor at Front Sight but have taken several classes there in Handgun and Shotgun. I can recommend it without reservation. The training and instruction is top notch. My business dealing with Dr. Piazza and Front Sight have been above board and Front Sight has delivered what they have promised and more. I have never seen any evidence of Scientology or been solicited along those lines. I do not know the "truth" here but I can tell you about my experiences at a customer at Front Sight. Another writes: I'm not affiliated with Frontsight in any way but I have been there a couple of times, most recently the weekend of 27-30 Sept. I totally agree with the statements made by Bill Haag. There was absolutley no mention of any religion, cult etc. The training is awesome, the instructors are great. The briefings on Frontsight givien by Piazza are given at lunch break and are purely optional. No one is forced to listen and they are very low key. The place is great and I have no reservations in going back. For the record, let me add that I have never heard any talk of Scientology at any Front Sight event -- ever. So given this range of uninformed and informed opinion, let's take a look at the strength of the actual accusations in Dean Gamburd's article "The Fourth Secret." 1. Gamburd claims that Piazza is a Scientologist. He references a document ("Scientology's Auditor publication #296 dated October 2001" published "published by 'ASHO' in Los Angeles California") in which Piazza is claimed to have reached "clear.") The problem is that we do not have any access to or even verification of the existence of this document. There is no online version, either as text or as a scanned image. In fact, it's unclear to what document or publication Gamburd is actually referring, as there is no proper publication title or publisher. 2. Gamburd claims that Piazza is "very short on Scientology conversions." Thus Gamburd claims that Piazza was "about to launch a full assault to help him move up the Scientology ladder, through the Front Sight First Family Ambassador Program and other soon to be announced programs." The problem is that the testimony of multiple Students, Instructors, and Range Masters offers no indication whatsoever of any recruitment efforts or even discussions of Scientology by Piazza or anyone else at Front Sight. I attended the big initial meeting of the Ambassador Program in Las Vegas. There was no mention of Scientology or presentations of any concepts of Scientology whatsoever. (I am familiar with and detest Scientology, so I would have noticed!) 3. Gamburd claims that Piazza spoke to him directly about being a Scientologist, send him and his wife some books, and offered to send them to Scientology classes for free. There is no independent confirmation of these facts. Given Gamburd's other groundless claims, we have good reason not to take him at his word. Independent verification would be needed, but none is offered. 4. The rest of Gamburd's article consists of innuendos about Piazza's handling of the finances of Front Sight, the curriculum at Front Sight, and more ludicrous claims about the Ambassador Program. (BTW, The management guru brought in for the Ambassador Program was Chet Holmes. He has no discernable association with Scientology whatsoever.) Dean Gamburd clearly has an ax to grind against Front Sight. He has no evidence to back up his claims. They should be dismissed as ludicrous. One Nagging Question That being said, I did have one nagging question about Piazza's e-mail. So I wrote to Ignatius Piazza about it directly. Here's the entire letter: Hi Naish, After receiving the "Front Sight Legal Bulletin" I found and read Dean Gamburd's essay, as well as the commentary on GlockTalk and elsewhere. Gamburd's accusations have no evidence whatsoever to back them up, so I'm pleased to ignore them, as the vast majority of Front Sight students seem to be doing as well. As usual, the most eager and willing to believe the accusations on the discussion boards are those who have never attended a course. I think such people have an envy problem, at the very least. In any case, it pains me for Front Sight to have to be dealing with such people. One thing did catch my attention in your note though: > We took the time to investigate him and continue our investigation. We > have found that he has hooked up with a hate group and is associating > with people of known criminal background and questionable ethics. I've kept my eye on the dangerous and criminal organization of Scientology over the past few years. When publicly criticized, one common strategy of the Church of Scientology has been to brand the critics as "religious intolerants" and "criminals" "involved in hate groups" on web sites like www.religiousfreedomwatch.com. (I can provide particular examples if you wish.) I'm sure that they would brand me as such if I ever investigated or published on Scientology, although nothing could be further from the truth. In case you are unfamiliar with the tactics of Scientology, I wanted to alert you to the extreme unreliability of any information they might provide about their critics. I am worried simply because your language seemed a bit too close to theirs. I hope that it was merely a coincidence! Let me know if I can be of any assistance. Best wishes in all of this brouhaha, diana. Naish only responded with "Thanks Diana." As I have expressed my concern about the wording and my views on Scientology, this matter is closed for me unless some actual evidence turns up. I don't entertain arbitrary hypotheses. However: Don't make the mistake of confusing dismissive my attitude towards baseless speculations with not actually caring about whether organizations and people I support are involved with Scientology. Given my views of Scientology, I would abhor being unknowingly associated with the Church of Scientology or any Scientologist. (After reading Monica Pignotti's My Nine Lives in Scientology, I could never be "whatever" about Scientology.) It is precisely the gravity of such situations that requires a careful and rational approach to judgment, not leaping to conclusions as so many have been all-too-willing to do. Link / Noodles / Trackback Notes on Descartes By Diana Hsieh @ 12:26 AM I'm pretty pleased with how my paper on Cartesian substance dualism paper turned out. But don't take my word for it, go see for yourself. (I've also posted my paper on Aristotle's view on substance in the Categories.) In retrospect, I'm actually quite glad that my professor refused my proposed paper topic. I enjoyed delving deep into Descartes' reasoning in the Meditations, particularly since I've never looked in detail at his arguments in that work before. Also, it proved to be a valuable lesson in bad philosophical method -- despite Descartes' great attempts to be careful and rigorous. In the paper, I decided not to discuss Descartes' errors in adopting a "diaphanous model of the mind" because in reading David Kelley's comments on Descartes in Evidence of the Senses, I realized that a more fundamental and interesting point could be made. Kelley points out that Descartes' Evil Demon Hypothesis in the First Meditation requires the mind to be something capable of existence independent of any physical world or external reality. As a result, Descartes has committed himself to substance dualism long before he officially broaches the subject in the Sixth Meditation. Interestingly enough, in my research on the Meditations I found no other commentator on Descartes who noted this presumption hidden in the Evil Demon Hypothesis; Descartes' skeptical worries in the First Meditation were seen as unproblematic. That David Kelley guy is one smart cookie! I'm not entirely sure, but Bob Campbell seems to have made similar point about Descartes' presumptions in the comments: Descartes not only believes that mind is diaphanous and identity-less, he also assumes that it is able to know about itself without knowing anything about the external world. Isn't this "prior certainty of consciousness" assumption anti-biological per se? If I understand what Bob means, yes. Descartes can't possibly have a view of the mind as dependent upon the physical, biological organism if the mind must be capable of existence independent of the physical world. Thus, as I note in the paper, it makes sense that Descartes never considers the option that the mind might be an action or attribute of the brain or organism as a whole. Such an option would have been incompatible with his capacity to doubt body but not mind. In writing this paper and listening to Binswanger's tapes The Metaphysics of Consciousness, I feel like I'm finally starting to get a handle on what a philosophy of mind ought to look like. It's about time! Link / Noodles / Trackback Wednesday, October 09, 2002 Updates and Apologies By Diana Hsieh @ 10:59 PM Let me offer my apologies to everyone I have been ignoring lately, particularly Arthur Silber and Bob Campbell. (They aren't the only ones; I have been ignoring far too many people outside the blogosphere too.) My excuse is that I have been totally mired in my paper on Cartesian substance dualism these past few days. Delightfully, I have no classes tomorrow, thanks to fall break. So at least I'll have time to catch up with some household chores and philosophical work in these next few days. So I should be blogging frequently, hopefully on both philosophy of mind and philosophical method. In fact, in a few moments I'll be posting some notes on that paper that sucked up so much of my time in the past week. 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