Find on all DianaHsieh.comjust NoodleFood / Most Recent Comments / NoodleFood RSS Feed

Friday, February 28, 2003 With Criminals Like These, Who Needs Cops?!? By Diana Hsieh @ 9:18 PM I'll be away from the computer for a few days, one of which is my one year blogiversary: March 4th! Horray for NoodleFood! To warm you up for the coming celebration, let me recommend this insane story about drug dealers crashing a party and working diligently to sell drugs to the crowd of cops. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis I Should Be Writing My Paper on Mental Causation! By Diana Hsieh @ 3:21 PM Catholicism, birth control, menstruation, primitive tribes, cancer, and atheism... this article has it all! And this one on the technology of disposable diapers was even more fascinating! Okay, I'm going to go work on my paper now. I swear. Really. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Meaning of Marriage By Diana Hsieh @ 2:54 PM I loved Tuesday's Bleat on the meaning of marriage. Paul and I have certain words that we characteristically mispronounce. "Suave" sounds like "swave." Yosemite (a local street) sounds like "Yo, Semite." "Chipotle's" is pronounced "Chip-oat-lees." I sometimes have trouble remembering which is the proper pronunciation and which is our silly pronunciation. I suspect that someday I will be deeply embarrassed by the confusion... but at least I'll be able to point people to this blog entry. But if I'm ever caught belting out one of my badly-rhyming, off-key, and wholly ridiculous odes to my husband in public, that'll be another story! Update: Paul just reminded me of one of his sillier pronunciations: "Palm Pilot" is pronounced with a French accent, like "Palm Pea-low." Okay, so maybe you have to hear him use in casual conversation... E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, February 27, 2003 Commercial Speech By Diana Hsieh @ 10:32 PM An announcement via Skip Olivia of Citizens for Voluntary Trade: Today the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Nike v. Kasky, which involves protections for so-called "commercial" speech under the First Amendment. CAC supports eliminating the judicial mandate that holds speech can be afforded lesser constitutional protection based on the identity and economic motives of the speaker. The CAC brief was drafted by myself, CAC chairman Nicholas Provenzo, and attorney Thomas Bowden, who filed the brief with the Court on CAC's behalf. The full text of the brief can be found at the following link: http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Campaigns/Speech/CAC_Amicus_Nike_merits.pdf Oh, and don't miss his very funny snow alert. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, February 26, 2003 Pretend Capitalists Hall of Shame By Diana Hsieh @ 3:04 PM While I was looking for information on Dana Berliner I found this interesting June 2002 article about Costco using eminent domain to get property on the cheap. Blech. I'm thinking that the world needs a "Pretend Capitalists Hall of Shame" for all those businessmen using and supporting government intervention when it suits them... I'd be happy to welcome in Scott McNealy, not to mention the loons from Segway. Other suggestions? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Dana Berliner on Enumerated Powers By Diana Hsieh @ 2:57 PM Dana Berliner, Senior Attorney for Institute for Justice and daughter of ARI bigwig Michael Berliner, has a nice article in NRO Online defending IJ's amicus brief arguing that "Texas's prohibition of same-sex sexual relations goes beyond the legitimate power of government." It's a clear defense of constitutions as primarily limitations on state power rather than enumerations of people's rights. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, February 25, 2003 A Small Ode to Albania By Diana Hsieh @ 8:36 AM One of the reasons I enjoy Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus is his keen appreciation of the brutality of tyranny -- and his appreciation for the deep courage of those fighting against it. Far too many on the left lack even a shred of such sensibilities, as Nordlinger is always amazed to point out. In this vein, I particularly appreciated his two comments on the recently-denigrated country of Albania. In the Feb 20th Impromptus, Nordlinger wrote: Many of us, I know, are sickened by the repeated denigration of the Eastern European states that have supported the U.S. in this confrontation. A prominent left-wing journalist, as Mark Steyn pointed out, described the former Iron Curtain countries as nations "you can buy on e-bay." And Mark Shields of CNN said, sarcastically, "Everyone's feeling better. Albania signed on." This struck a nerve with me, as I was in Albania in September. I had never been to that country before. (Few of us Westerners have.) I met with many intellectuals and journalists. I met men who had been in prison for years, because they had dared to dissent from the brutal totalitarian regime that was ruling them. I was terribly moved by their expressions of support for America -- and by their gratitude for the American role in opposing Soviet Communism. One intellectual told me that some other Europeans sneered at Albania as "the Israel of the Balkans." I said he ought to consider that an enormous honor. I have an Albanian flag -- the double-headed eagle -- "flying" in my office right now. And I am thrilled by the support and the heart of such people, for they know -- more than people in Paris -- about tyranny, freedom, and appeasement. In a way, I regard the support of Eastern Europeans as more desirable than the support of comfortable Westerners. Mark Shields smirked, "Everyone's feeling better. Albania signed on." Well, I am. Nordlinger followed up in the Feb 24th Impromptus: In my last Impromptus, I wrote of certain liberals' denigration of Albania, and how, especially given my experience there, I was particularly pleased that the Bush administration had the support of that nation. Several people wrote to remind me that Albania is a majority-Muslim state -- which should make their support all the sweeter. One reader wrote, hilariously, "Does our media establishment belittle this small nation because they aren't proper Muslims? Are Albanians a nation of Islamic Miguel Estradas?" Check out this letter from an Albanian-American, typically moving: "I wanted to say a couple of words about Mark Shields's comments. For many, many years, I was shocked and surprised that in every election in Italy, the Communist party got 30-35 percent of the votes. That the French Communist party got 20 percent or more. Same in Spain and Portugal. In Greece, there were and still are two Communist parties, with 10 percent of the vote each. "I was wondering why these people voted for Communism. We were a country of 3 million inhabitants with 30,000 political prisoners, 100,000 in reeducation camps and forced labor, and 10,000 executed. Churches and mosques were destroyed in the cultural revolution of 1968, and listening to rock 'n' roll was punishable by jail. A family of four was entitled in a month to two pounds of beef, 24 eggs, half a pound of butter, 100 grams of coffee, half a liter of oil, and a pound of feta cheese. If police heard you complain about conditions, you got seven years in jail. In the meantime, millions of Western Europeans voted for Communism, over and over again. "Four years ago, I bought a house and since then have been flying two flags at the entrance, an American flag and an Albanian flag. Both of them had been flying in my heart for many years, even in middle of a Communist dictatorship. (The Albanian flag, in my heart, was without the Communist star on top.) "So, 3 million Albanians should mean something to Mark Shields. But, of course, they do not. "P.S. Six months ago, I went to see a Rolling Stones concert with my brother. A dream came true, and my brother and I left the concert crying. It reminded us that not too long ago, listening to them was punishable by jail. When are people going to know about Communism? When?" E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, February 24, 2003 Embracing Contradiction By Diana Hsieh @ 2:03 PM I think that Dean Kamen (the inventor of Segway) must be an advocate of "free markets" like college students are advocates of "free beer." According to the Washington Post article: The inventor, a proponent of free markets, also wants Congress to help him sell more Segways to consumers by funding projects that would create paths for the scooters in cities, and by providing environmental tax credits to people who buy them. ... "One of the reasons Dean moved to New Hampshire was he loved the 'live free or die' motto. Keep government out," said Brian Toohey, a vice president at Kamen's company. "But to make this technology widely available, we need government help." Well now, that just blew apart my standard model of how much contradiction people can tolerate in their beliefs. Wow. Oh, and isn't it just rich that the VP is named "Toohey"? (Thanks to Quare for the link and quotes.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, February 23, 2003 I Miss Virginia By Diana Hsieh @ 5:37 PM Nick Gillespie's recent article on the success of Marvel comic cinema adaptations has a nice discussion of why Marvel was failing until recently. But he misses the boat in explaining why the movies are now so popular. He writes: To engage the Marvel Universe, then, is to contemplate an existentialist koan, an insoluble riddle about individual identity, community, and self-transformation. How does a person, much less a society, balance these things? To engage the Marvel Universe is also to engage our contemporary world, which anthropologist Grant McCracken has convincingly argued is characterized by "plenitude," or "the quickening speciation of social types." Pick any category of humans--seniors, say, or teens, or goths, or gays, or straights--and there are more identities available to individuals than ever before, and, says McCracken, generally more acceptance of that choice. As important, this transformation process is never fully under our control, even as we strive to direct it through ever-varied patterns of culture-making and operations small and large, figurative and literal. Spider-Man, The Hulk, the X-Men, Daredevil--that's us on the big screen. No wonder we're packing the theaters to watch. Well, I remain unconvinced by that convoluted and quivering mass of postmodern multiculturalist gobbledygook. The more plausible explanation for the success of Marvel-based movies is that 9/11 shifted many people back into a deeply moral frame of mind. Good and evil -- and the ever-so-significant difference between them -- took on a reality that had faded into a gray morass for many. The universe of Marvel comics is one which affirms the distinction between good and evil in the sharpest terms -- even while acknowledging that heroes may have personal demons of their own to fight. (Superman is completely uninteresting as a superhero precisely because he has no such demons, because he seems to lack an inner life at all. Perhaps he should be called SuperZOMBIE rather than SuperMAN.) We love Marvel heroes because they live in an exaggerated version of our own dangerous world -- and instead of asking "Why do they hate us?" and worrying about the dangers of unilateral action, they fight and forebear and generally do whatever is necessary to serve justice. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, February 21, 2003 Allahu Akbar! By Diana Hsieh @ 9:44 AM Lileks saw the same horribly disturbing broadcast of Friday's sermon from Iraq that I saw on Brit Hume last night. Lileks writes: I just saw a video of one of the sermons, carried on prime-time TV in Iraq. Same old same old, with a twist: Usually the text says that the very trees will cry out there is a Jew behind me, kill him. This video had a new version: even the stone will say "a Jew is hiding behind me. Come and cut off his head." And then the mullah pulled out a sword. That's the detail you don't get in the transcripts: these men of God are packing heat - granted, it's medieval-style slicy heat, but heat nonetheless. "And we shall cut off his head!" he shouted, waving the sword. "By Allah, we shall cut it off! Oh Jews! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Jihad for the sake of Allah! Jihad for the sake of Allah!" In listening and watching this spew of hatred, I could almost smell the gas chambers of Auschwitz bellowing out smoke again. Then again, I'm not sure that Islamic Jew-haters would be quite so neat and orderly about their genocide of the Jews; a plain old bloodbath would do quite nicely for them, I suspect. Such thoughts make me ill. The video did have one interesting oddity: Many listeners were clearly visibly excited and cheering, but many were also completely still and silent. Let's hope that means something. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, February 20, 2003 Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My! By Diana Hsieh @ 11:09 PM According to some Saudi apologists, forbidding women to drive is all well and good, but the fact that Saudi women are also forbidden from running businesses they own is a great embarrassment. This restriction is so bad that it might just render such apologists incapable of "present[ing] convincing reasons for what women are not allowed to do in the country that is the birthplace of Islam." Heaven forbid! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, February 19, 2003 A Worthy Cause By Diana Hsieh @ 2:18 PM Hey folks, Arthur Silber needs some help keeping the light of reason shining brightly! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis My Intellectual Laziness By Diana Hsieh @ 11:48 AM While feeding the beasts, I had some meta-thoughts about my present debate with Julian Sanchez over the interpretation of the Susan Lee's article on libertarianism. In my original post, I claimed that Lee's arguments for libertarianism were all of the "subjectivist variety" and offered three quotes to support that interpretation. And then I quickly noted that moral relativism is an "illusory foundation for libertarianism." Now I do think that a reasonable argument can be made for a more charitable interpretation of Lee's article, as Sanchez has done. However, as I have argued, I don't think that such an interpretation is well-supported by the text. In particular, it requires the acceptance of an implicit context that seems at odds with Lee's explicit claims. Now, whether my interpretation of Lee's argument is right or wrong in the end, it is clearly not unreasonable. In particular, I have supported my argument with direct quotes from the article from the outset. It's not as if I interpreted the article as claiming that libertarians support the welfare state, as an argument that grasshoppers are dangerous creatures, or as a coded message that the apocalypse is coming. But Sanchez's response skewered me as if my interpretation was precisely that absurd. My original post was a "knee-jerk reaction" and "obtuse." According to him, I didn't bother to inquire whether Lee was really advocating moral relativism. In comments, Sanchez later defends such comments as "mild snark" justified by what he sees as my intellectual laziness. But how exactly was I intellectually lazy? How was my reaction of the knee-jerk variety? I read the article. I offered a reasonable interpretation. I provided quotes to support that interpretation. I've now read the article about five more times -- and I still see exactly the same moral relativism I noted on the first read. Am I still being intellectually lazy? How is it that my disagreement with Julian's claims of implicit context warrants such sniping at my intellectual character? So basically, I'm annoyed. I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree about Lee's article, given that Julian and I have each made our cases. Uncharitable and false inferences about my mental processes are a whole different story. I'm not looking for any more arguments with Julian. He's a Cato guy, and as a former Cato intern, I'm predisposed to like and respect the folks at Cato. But still, I'm annoyed. Update: My view of libertarianism has change substantially since I wrote this post. For my reasons why, see the second half of my blog post Stinky Garbage on Islam and my husband's essay The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon and the Organization of Health Practitioners or Why I Don't Support Libertarian Organizations. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Stretching Charity By Diana Hsieh @ 8:40 AM Julian Sanchez argues that I have exhibited a neurological deficiency in my critique of Susan Lee's op-ed advocating a subjectivist version of libertarianism: The first of these is Lee's contrast between libertarians, who "are not comfortable with normative questions," and conservatives eager to codify their value hierarchies in law. The knee-jerk reaction from some quarters is the true-but-obtuse observation that, of course, full-blown moral relativism is normatively inert -- you cant use it as a foundation for a political theory, in its strong form. Obviously, if you're going to deny that we can be confident about any moral principles, you don't have much ground to stand on when you object to government encroachment on your liberties. The problem is, you pretty much have to assume, in violation of basic standards of interpretive charity, that Lee is a full-out imbecile if you think that such an obvious point somehow escaped her. In other words, you need to calm your twitchy knee for long enough to inquire whether that's what she's really saying. I find it interesting that Julian Sanchez takes me to task for failing to be charitable to Susan Lee, while at the same time failing to be charitable with me. But as I have noticed over the years, people tend to tolerate such contradictions fairly easily. So no, Julian, I did not presume that Susan Lee was an "imbecile" (let alone a "full-out imbecile") -- but rather just an average non-philosopher with the usual below-average skills of contradiction-detection. Intelligent people don't always make intelligent arguments. The principle of charity does not magically transform arguments into rubber, allowing them to be stretched into favorable interpretations. In any interpretation, our first priority should be to look for the clear and coherent meaning, only using the principle of charity when doubts about that meaning remain. Susan Lee's article left little doubts. For example, she writes, "Libertarians are not comfortable with normative questions. They admit to one moral principle from which all preferences follow; that principle is self-ownership--individuals have the right to control their own bodies, in action and speech, as long as they do not infringe on the same rights for others. The only role for government is to help people defend themselves from force or fraud. Libertarians do not concern themselves with questions of 'best behavior' in social or cultural matters." If these statements had been qualified with the very short and simple "in politics," most of my objections would disappear. But Lee made no such qualification, not here, not elsewhere in the article. So why should we read her as if she did? Why shouldn't we take her to mean exactly what she says? As libertarians, we might really really want Lee to make good arguments, particularly on the pages of The Wall Street Journal. But such a desire doesn't justify reading qualifications into the text that don't exist. People make bad arguments all the time, including for viewpoints with which we agree. By supporting these bad arguments rather than noting their failures, we weaken the power and appeal of libertarianism in the long run. So why bother? Update: My view of libertarianism has change substantially since I wrote this post. For my reasons why, see the second half of my blog post Stinky Garbage on Islam and my husband's essay The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon and the Organization of Health Practitioners or Why I Don't Support Libertarian Organizations. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, February 18, 2003 A B D I C A T I O N By Diana Hsieh @ 11:06 PM I heard on "Special Report with Brit Hume" tonight that our friend Chirac wants Hans Blix to tell us when (if ever) to go to war with Iraq. Worse yet, Bill Clinton apparently agrees with him. Can anyone spell A B D I C A T I O N O F M O R A L R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y? How in the world could it possibly be wrong for a large coalition of (non-weaselish) countries to choose to wage war upon Iraq but right for a single UN bureaucrat to do the same? The mind boggles. More importantly, this is just the latest of many recent examples of wholly unprincipled and opportunistic arguments against the war. Would Chirac support such a stance if Blix wasn't backpedaling on Iraq's noncompliance? Of course not! It's merely a convenient, momentary delay tactic that shall be abandoned as soon as Blix fails to serve Chirac's purposes. As various bloggers have noted, many anti-war protesters in the US and elsewhere follow the same pattern: their opposition to the war often seems to be more about opposition to Bush than opposition to the war. Ah, I long for the days of the Boston Tea Party, when at least some Americans understood that once the principle is conceded, all is lost! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, February 17, 2003 Gbloogle! By Diana Hsieh @ 1:55 PM BoingBoing has a delightfully optimistic analysis of the implications of Google's purchase of Blogger. I think Cory's right that the acquisition will be great for Blogger users, for the blogging community at large, and for Google users. (So far, I haven't seen the unjustified bitching and moaning that accompanied Google's purchase of DejaNews -- thank goodness!) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, February 16, 2003 Intelectual components By Diana Hsieh @ 11:47 PM Congrats to Virginia for being written up as one of Elle's intelligentsia. But I suspect the editors mean "Intellectual opponents" rather than "Intelectual components"! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Lion Kitty! By Diana Hsieh @ 11:13 PM Paul forwarded me this story last week. It was just too funny not to post, whether true or not! Note: This was not done on purpose (by the pet owner) and the cat is fine and back to normal. My sister-in law is from Oklahoma and has a slight accent. She has cats and when she lived in the south she would take them to the groomers and have what is called a Line Cut. To her a line cut is when all of the fur hanging down below the cat's tummy is taken off (because it gets matted or snarled). When she moved to Chicago with my brother, one of the cats fur got all tangled up during the move so she took it in for a line cut. She was quite surprised when she heard the price as it was twice as much as it was down south. She confirmed with the groomer that he understood what a line cut was and he said "yes, I know what a LION cut is." It seems her accent came out sounding like LION not LINE and this is how her cat was returned to her. She cried for a week... but not as much as the cat. It was November in Chicago and the cat needed all the fur it had. Gas in car to go to groomers: $4.50 Cat car carrier: $32.99 Grooming fee: $80.00 Getting the look from one seriously pissed off cat: Priceless! The image of this ridiculous kitty has been periodically invading my thoughts all week. Now it's your turn! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, February 15, 2003 Our Marxist Constitution By Diana Hsieh @ 9:19 AM A WSJ article notes some more consequences of failed government schools: According to a recent survey of America's most elite universities, nearly all college seniors could identify Beavis and Butt-head but 40% could not place the Civil War in the right half-century. A national history test of high-school seniors found a majority of them identifying Germany, Italy or Japan as a U.S. ally in World War II. Still another survey of Americans at large found a third attributing the line "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" to the Constitution rather than Karl Marx. I just can't get over that last one. Repeat after me, youngsters: The US Constitution is not a Marxist document. The US Constitution is not a Marxist document. The US Constitution is not a Marxist document. Augh! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, February 14, 2003 Predictable Failure By Diana Hsieh @ 9:52 PM Wonder why government schools are awash in a sea of uneducated, out-of-control children? Look no further. Why is it, I wonder, that the education bureaucrats are not just incompetent but appear downright determined to fail in their task of educating their students? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, February 13, 2003 Ouch! By Diana Hsieh @ 11:36 PM I'm trying to blog more regularly, but I cut the tip of my finger tonight, so I can't type without blood and pain. I can avoid the finger while typing, as I am right now, but that's annoying. I guess I'm just not sufficiently committed. (Strangely enough, my finger was cut in the process of making a sweeping gesture with my arm across the kitchen counter when an almost-removed lid of a can of chicken broth got in my way by about 1/4 of an inch. Go figure.) In better news, my new barebones computer system arrived today, so I'll be installing cannibalized components from other machines and the latest version of RedHat to make a new co-located server. Very cool! I also got a wireless networking router plus cards for our two laptops, so that we can experience our new speedy internet connection throughout the house. Here's a final tidbit for the evening: According to one of the stupid anti-war folks on the unmoderated allegedly-sort-of-Objectivist list Atlantis, a war with Iraq will result in "most of its citizens dead and lying under tons of rubble." The mind boggles not just at the sheer numbers advocated, but also at the blindness to the (successful) efforts of the US military in recent decades to substantially limit non-combatant casualties. But given the general lack of intelligent debate on the list, such silliness is to be expected -- but still lamented. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, February 12, 2003 We Should Have Predicted This... By Diana Hsieh @ 11:00 AM Long have guns been regarded by the left as magical objects, capable of transforming rational people into bloodthirsty lunatics through mere possession. But now, even the word "gun" has taken on magical properties, capable of transforming peaceful children into future bloodthirsty lunatics, if they learn how to spell it. Really, it's just that silly. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Proving Peter Schwartz Right By Diana Hsieh @ 10:41 AM Apparently, the only arguments for libertarianism that Susan Lee recognizes are the subjectivist variety. According to her, "libertarians are not comfortable with normative questions" and "libertarian thought promotes relativism and inclusiveness" due to "indifference to moral questions." Even worse, in the closing paragraphs she claims that "libertarian thought is ... a postmodern attitude." Such "friends" of liberty are no friends at all. Moral relativism is incoherent in its own right -- and an illusory foundation for libertarianism. After all, if we can't say anything useful about morality, then why is initiating force wrong? I'm almost motived to write a letter to the editor, but work for Camp Indecon is more pressing right now. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, February 03, 2003 Speedy Diana! By Diana Hsieh @ 9:16 PM Wow! I mean WOW! Really: WOWWOWOWWOWOWOWOW! After struggling for almost two years with a very slow and very expensive ISDN line, we just got our neighborhood wireless internet access installed today. Bandwidth Place has us at a "fantastic" rating of 1.2 megabits per second. (Yes, that's almost as fast as a T1 line.) The ISDN was basically two 56K lines -- for a whopping $105 per month. Our new service is half the price and oh-so-many times the speed. It's just nutty that Light of Reason only takes about a half a second to load now. Even my PINE e-mail sessions are so much faster. Awesome! Well, I suppose that I need to spread the geeky love to Paul's computer now. (I have to install a second network card on my machine to reactivate the local network.) This is really awesome. Really. Really. Really. Awesome. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Speech on Campus By Diana Hsieh @ 11:57 AM Daphne Patai, a professor of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and author of Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies, has written a great article on the hypocrisy of professors who can't tolerate public criticism of their own teaching -- yet regard the expression of opposing viewpoints as "chilling" free speech. (Perhaps "hypocrisy" isn't quite the right word. "Total and complete ignorance of the nature of free speech rights" might be more accurate.) Right now, the article is the top story on the web site of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Right in Education). I'm always delightfully amazed at the effectiveness of that organization. Through adverse publicity, they are quite adept at making universities recognize the folly of squashing speech on campus. A few months ago, I attended a talk by Christina Hoff Sommers in which she discussed the bias against conservative and libertarian viewpoints on campuses. Unlike in other departments (like history, politics, English), she noted that such liberal bias is fairly uncommon in philosophy departments. Philosophers, on the whole, tend to be more concerned with the quality of the arguments made rather than agreement with the conclusions. This observation certainly mirrors my own experience -- thank goodness. Grad school would be intolerable otherwise. This talk of speech on campus reminds me of an e-mail from the CU Administration that I should have posted a while back: Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:19:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Vital CU-Boulder E-memo <memofrom@Colorado.EDU> Subject: Campus Community and Tolerance TO: CU Boulder Students FROM: President Elizabeth Hoffman and Chancellor Richard L. Byyny SENDER: wendzel@spot.colorado.edu DATE: August 29, 2002 SUBJECT: Campus Community and Tolerance Let us take this opportunity to welcome all of you to a new academic year on the Boulder campus. We look forward to this exciting time of learning and discovery that characterize the University of Colorado at Boulder. At CU-Boulder we are a community made up of diverse peoples, ideas and opinions, creating a rich fabric that invigorates and informs us all. Consequently, the discord of ideas can lead to potentially threatening incidents of confrontation and intimidation. As CU System President and CU-Boulder Chancellor, we join with our entire community in condemning acts of intolerance toward any person, group or cause. Throughout our history, University of Colorado at Boulder faculty, students and staff have distinguished ourselves as individuals who value tolerance, academic integrity and freedom of speech. We care deeply about our community and the communities around the globe. We will not tolerate expressions of hatred and violence toward any member of our campus community. Offenders will face serious consequences, including probation, suspension or expulsion. As a campus community, we have experienced feelings of tremendous loss and emotional turmoil in the year since September 11. Our overwhelming response, like that of countless other communities, has been to unite, overcome fear and support each other. As the new year begins, we urge you all to embrace the values of our University family, including respect, integrity, tolerance, and fairness and to reject acts of hatred that divide and isolate us. Together, we can set an example as a campus that advocates and embodies tolerance, mutual respect and understanding. Hey, why not just send offenders to South Park's Death Camp of Tolerance instead? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, February 01, 2003 Columbia Destroyed By Diana Hsieh @ 9:59 AM I am heartbroken. What else can be said? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis

Goodies NoodleFoodlers Diana Hsieh Paul Hsieh Greg Perkins Guest NoodleFoodlers Paula Hall Blog Stuff Recent Comments RSS Feed by E-Mail Ask a Question Blogger Trackbacks Technorati Trackbacks Blogger Trackbacks NoodleFood RSS Feed NetFlix Friends Reader Map Objectivist Mailing Lists OActivists OBloggers OAcademics Objectivism Resources Ayn Rand Lexicon False Objectivism Collection Front Range Objectivism Ayn Rand Institute DC Objectivist Salon Ayn Rand Society Activism The Objective Standard The Undercurrent FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) Ayn Rand Institute Family Paul Hsieh's GeekPress Meredith Brickell Ceramics Blogroll Archives March 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008