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

Monday, March 31, 2003 Honesty By Diana Hsieh @ 9:56 PM In very important American Idol news, Corey Clark has been booted off the show for failing to disclose the fact that he was arrested for beating up his sister and resisting arrest. I'm glad Fox is doing the right thing -- but it's definitely not as great a loss as Frenchie the porn star. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Nothing Quite Like... By Diana Hsieh @ 4:17 PM ... a Marine at war with a sense of humor: Umm Qasr is essentially a void now in the daily briefings of the Iraqi disinformation minister. His last mention of Umm Qasr was a vow that it would never fall into the hands of the “pirates” (arrrrrrrgh) and “gangsters” (mama mia!) of the coalition. This is essentially true, in that the coalition is devoid of either. American and British troops did take the city, though, and are in the process of… doing nefarious things like public works projects. There has to be as many aid workers and civil engineers running around the coalition-occupied territory of Southern Iraq as there are fighting troops now. And the last I checked, the pirates of the Caribbean were not especially concerned with the welfare of those they invaded. And I’m short a parrot, damn it. Or how about this tidbit? Can we stop the postmortems already? Peter Arnett is already declaring this thing a failure on Iraqi television. And that’s a damn shame, because I live my life in constant need of approval from Peter Arnett. Look, I can understand Pete’s need to switch over to a network with more viewership than MSNBC, but come on, I thought the journalist’s credo was “objective,” not “aid and comfort.” The firing of Peter Arnett from multiple jobs was sweet justice indeed. Given his history, I doubt he'll ever work as a TV journalist ever again. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Victory! By Diana Hsieh @ 3:34 PM I'm down to 20 messages in my inbox! Hooray! I've been hovering around 100 for months now, despite my weekly clean ups, so this is a real victory. Perhaps I'll get down below 10 next week. That would be astonishing. More likely I'll be up to at least 50. Just remember folks: The best kind of e-mail is good news to which I need not respond. :-) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Exciting news! By Diana Hsieh @ 3:06 PM A few days ago, Steve Simpson of the Institute for Justice sent me a copy of his and Dana Berliner's op-ed on the Lawrence vs. Texas sodomy case. It's excellent, as expected. They write: Conservatives, especially, ought to be wary of casting their lot with the states on this issue. If the states can ban purely private conduct between consenting adults, what is to keep them from banning home schooling, for instance, or instituting mandatory preschool, or requiring parents to follow certain nutritional guidelines for their children? Conservatives who condone a process that leads us down this path need to start asking themselves what exactly it is they are trying to conserve. Unfortunately, the left's approach is no better. Where conservatives extol the virtue of state government power when it comes to certain moral or lifestyle issues, the left extols the virtues of government power when it comes to regulations of property and economic affairs. Both sides love government power when it suits their immediate agenda, but both ought to realize that this approach is only as good as one's ability to control a particular legislature. The left ought to recognize that it cannot pick and choose which aspects of individual liberty are beyond government power. Privacy is worth very little if one has no property on which to practice it. The cool part is that Steve described NoodleFood as "one of [his] morning staples." For all I know, he's just buttering me up for the sake of the onslaught of publicity that a mention on NoodleFood inevitably brings. But who cares!?! My blog adores flattery! :-) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Horror of Blimps By Diana Hsieh @ 1:55 PM Take a deep breath. Put down all food and beverages. Sit down securely in your chair. "But why?", you might ask Because I do not want you to hurt yourself or damage your property upon reading this hysterical story on the dangers of indoor radio-controlled blimps. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, March 30, 2003 A Really Big Tent By Diana Hsieh @ 8:26 PM Sometimes, I must admit, life is just too good. Stories of exposing commies just don't get much better than this one. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sadistic Uncle Saddam By Diana Hsieh @ 3:22 PM This commentary was found at the end of an otherwise normal review of the documentary Uncle Saddam: However, Americans, who were led to believe by President George Bush that Iraq would be a cakewalk with 'liberated' Iraqis dancing in the streets to welcome the Anglo-Americans axis troops, are looking askance at reports that the Iraqis are actually holding out. It is evident that the Iraqi people, in their time of crisis, have proven to like Saddam and are now rallying behind him against the US-British aggression. The heroic resistance of the Iraqi people has stunned the West and the Arab world, and all those who believed the battle would end quickly for the benefit of the US and British armies. It is clear that the Iraqi people, whom they wished to liberate, refuse to accept freedom brought to them by the tanks of the occupation forces. Western policy makers miscalculated their strategy and admitted that the time was ripe for Britain and the US to seek an "honorable" solution in the United Nations. I must have missed the "Aggression Against Iraq" banner at the top of the page on my first reading. In any case, perhaps these folks should read Arab News more often, where this startling report appeared: When we finally made it to Safwan, Iraq, what we saw was utter chaos. Iraqi men, women and children were playing it up for the TV cameras, chanting: "With our blood, with our souls, we will die for you Saddam." I took a young Iraqi man, 19, away from the cameras and asked him why they were all chanting that particular slogan, especially when humanitarian aid trucks marked with the insignia of the Kuwaiti Red Crescent Society, were distributing some much-needed food. His answer shouldn't have surprised me, but it did. He said: "There are people from Baath here reporting everything that goes on. There are cameras here recording our faces. If the Americans were to withdraw and everything were to return to the way it was before, we want to make sure that we survive the massacre that would follow as Baath go house to house killing anyone who voiced opposition to Saddam. In public, we always pledge our allegiance to Saddam, but in our hearts we feel something else." Different versions of that very quote, but with a common theme, I would come to hear several times over the next three days I spent in Iraq. The people of Iraq are terrified of Saddam Hussein. I certainly didn't expect so much resistance and so little uprising by the Iraqi people in this war. But in hindsight, the present situation makes perfect sense. In 1991, we encouraged rebellion... and then allowed Saddam to slaughter and brutalize those who did so. (Wisely I think, we are actively discouraging such rebellion this time around.) And Saddam clearly learned his lesson from 1991, given his present use of the Fedayeen to terrorize the locals into submission -- and into fighting. The Iraqi people are -- and should be -- wary of our invasion until they know we have eliminated the threat from Saddam. Let's hope they need not be wary for long. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, March 29, 2003 Virgin Indeed By Diana Hsieh @ 8:37 PM I just read the most revolting OWL post ever from Mike Rael. Mike has been around a long time. He should know better. Anyway, here it is: Hi friends:) I've begun looking for Saddam's actual uncensored speeches. So far, I have found the following link, that involves his talk with Dan Rather: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/main542173.shtml Saddam sounds like a conman, mixing truth and lies. But, in all fairness, he sounds far more dignified than we could have imagined from the soundbytes we have heard on TV. One thought stands out: Saddam proposed a debate with the President of the United States. This was immediately rejected by the White House as "unserious." As I read what Saddam had to say, and factoring in that Rather avoided the tough questions about Saddam's rule, whatever else it was, that question of a debate sounded awfully serious to these virgin ears. One thought stands out: Saddam proposed a debate with the President of the United States. This was immediately rejected by the White House as "unserious." As I read what Saddam had to say, and factoring in that Rather avoided the tough questions about Saddam's rule, whatever else it was, that question of a debate sounded awfully serious to these virgin ears. best wishes all, Mike I didn't bother posting the following response on the list; I just sent it to him privately. Mike, I must admit your OWL post to be one of the most revolting proposals I've ever heard. Should FDR have debated Hitler about the proper response to the "Jewish problem"? Saddam is a brutal dictator who does not deserve the pretense of being treated as a respectable or rational person. The only debate ought to be over the mode of his speedy demise. Go read this article on what his son is allowed to do: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam/. Sheesh, even Sports Illustrated is writing on the brutality of his regime. Do you pay no attention? Do you notice nothing more than the facade? No self-respecting, moral person would ever even consider standing up in debate with a known liar, let alone a man who routinely uses torture, rape, and murder as means of securing his domination over others. I'm truly amazed that you would regard the proposal of debate as "serious" or at all worthy of consideration. The mind boggles. diana. I think I need to go take a shower or something. Ick. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis More From Den Beste By Diana Hsieh @ 7:46 PM Steven also has this sober and insightful analysis of the progress of the war from a friend and a retired military officer. And more... Steven offers a delightful description of France's recent mangled olive branch. To take it, "all we have to do is apologize and repent, and France won't hold our misbehavior against us." That reminds me of a former friend's attempt at reconciliation after a rather serious break. There too, acceptance would have required me to grovel in apology and repentance -- but I had little hope of wiping the slate clean of my allegedly horrible crimes. (I won't name her, but surely my friends -- often former friends of hers as well -- know exactly who I'm talking about.) Oh hell, forget this piecemeal stuff. Just start at the top and read down. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis War Crimes? By Diana Hsieh @ 7:19 PM A question: If Iraq is using state-run television to commit war crimes (by showing American dead and POWs) and to urge terrorists attacks (by urging civilians to suicide bomb US military forces), how can bombing it be the "war crime" that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch? Do brutal dictatorships have a right to spread propaganda, to commit war crimes, and encourage terrorism? Steven Den Beste has the real round-up on the sell-out of these organizations to leftist ideology, first in this post and then in this one. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis War Images By Diana Hsieh @ 12:04 PM Pro-war liberal Michael Totten has one of the best collections of war images I've found. Just keep scrolling down for more, as he posts them periodically. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Pro-War By Diana Hsieh @ 9:39 AM Thomas Sowell comments on who is pro-war... and it's not who you might think. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, March 28, 2003 Moore Captions By Diana Hsieh @ 11:24 PM The BBC's winning captions for the picture of Michael Moore (below) sucked. The proper caption surely must be "Yes, yes, without my spandex girdle, my butt really is that wide!" Really, what else could he be saying? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Maps to Scale By Diana Hsieh @ 10:53 PM I'm none too enamored of retired military men drawing upon maps for the news channels; they're just too coarse to be informative. Lileks puts the point just so much more nicely: I’ve kept track of the war via the radio and the web. Radio gives you the news of the moment; the web gives you detail and commentary. TV is useful for pictures - I get the feeling sometimes this should be called Operation Stock Footage - and it’s useful for seeing retired military people draw lines on maps. I am heartened by the maps that show where our troops are located - if the pictures are indeed drawn to scale, we have three soldiers on the ground, and each is about 135 miles tall; they have at their disposal four tanks, each of which is the size of Rhode Island. Yup! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis From Friendly Links to Grouchy Rants By Diana Hsieh @ 10:11 PM War has inspired a great deal of excellent blogging. Heck, even I'm posting more than once per day. So here's a few tidbits: Phil Carter has a nice discussion of why urban warfare is so bloody. Eugene has some terrible quotes from Mugabe favorably comparing himself to Hitler. While the press is busy second-guessing our military after a mere week of war, we all ought to be reminded of the dangers of the retrospectoscope. One of the most strident pacifists on the Atlantis list posted a list of quotes from anti-war activists in Baghdad. The comment by Lisa Ndjeru was particularly amazing. She wrote: We get many phone calls from the media wanting to know casualty numbers and information about places hit. There's a lot of talk about precision. Are the Americans hitting precise targets? Are they keeping casualties to a minimum? It makes me very angry. Even if it were precision bombing, precision being that not a single civilian or home were hit, it still doesn't make this war legitimate. (Emphasis added.) How is that not being objectively pro-Saddam? That last one is almost as good as Salam Pax complaining about broken windows near precision bombing. Ah right, how can the overthrow of a brutal dictator be worth the terrible evil of a few broken windows! It should not be borne! Really, such lamentations should be saved for the genuine horrors of war. Oh, and here's an old one, particularly relevant to our delicate ladies in uniform... A nice warm GO TO HELL is my only response to this idiotic article on how women are incapable of honor. I'm neither an angry nor a violent person, but such self-demeaning stupidity makes me want to beat the crap out of someone. Ah, but then I remember that such actions would violate my nature as a nurturing creature. Excuse me while I go read Lt Smash for some butt-kicking consolation... Then perhaps I'll watch Aliens or T2 for their morally uplifting examples of properly feminine ladies. Okay. Wow. I'll stop ranting now. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Anti-American By Diana Hsieh @ 4:51 PM As many have commented, calling the anti-war protesters "peace protesters" is inaccurate, as peace is not their object. Life under Saddam's rule, after all, is hardly peaceful. But today, Nordlinger goes further, arguing that "anti-war" might not be so accurate either. He writes: Speaking of the very, very ugly: You may have seen the banner that "antiwar protesters" carried in San Francisco: "We Support Our Troops When They SHOOT Their Officers." So let us put to rest the notion that all of the protesters want only the "safe return of our boys"; that they are simply gentle, high-minded peace-lovers. It reminds me a little of the Vietnam era. After the fall of Saigon — and after reports of reeducation camps, boat people, and mass murder reached the West — the Left said, "All we wanted was for our boys to come home, to be out of harm's way." I'm sure this was true of many activists. But a great many of them were openly pro-North, pro-Ho, pro-Communist, pro-American defeat. This was a fact that got greatly obscured, in later years. Jane Fonda, for example, was in no significant sense antiwar: She was for the victory of the Communist North against the America-backed South. Although it has long been impolite to say that. Incidentally, you probably noticed that I put "antiwar protesters" in quotes above. That is because some of these people are hardly antiwar, more closely resembling the Fonda of yore. So perhaps such Fonda-like people should be called "pro-defeat" or "anti-victory" instead of "anti-war." Or perhaps the label "anti-American" is really the most descriptive. Update: Josh Zader has posted some further analysis of this issue! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Blogshares! By Diana Hsieh @ 4:30 PM NoodleFood apparently isn't worth much, but at least it's listed on the exchange! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, March 27, 2003 Eugene, Au Naturel By Diana Hsieh @ 6:52 PM Eugene Volokh dissects the various meanings of "natural" with his usual insight and precision. (Scroll up for more.) From a philosophical perspective, attempts to justify normative claims on the basis of "nature" seem to run headlong into Hume's is-ought gap. We cannot determine what we ought to do simply on the basis of our capacities and functions, for all the reasons Eugene indicates. I would say more but work beckons... -- and not because philosophizing and programming are natural! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Ouch! By Diana Hsieh @ 5:32 PM Wow, I wouldn't have thought it possible, but someone has managed fifty examples of pure snark on a single page. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Libertarianism versus libertarianism By Diana Hsieh @ 9:19 AM I've been involved in a debate over the past few days on the Nathaniel Branden Forum on the nature of libertarianism. (Basically, the debate has been between the positions of Peter Schwartz's "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty" and Nathaniel Branden's Objectivism and Libertarianism.) My basic argument was presented in my first post: There is a world of difference between libertarianism as a political philosophy and the Libertarian Party. In my experience, the LP tends to more anti-government than pro-liberty. Far too many of its participants are motivated by a rebellion against authority and a desire to smoke dope et al legally than a genuine regard for individual rights. I have neither love nor respect for the LP. Small-l libertarianism is a political philosophy of individual rights and minimal government. Some attempt to justify it in wrong ways, but that doesn't make libertarianism itself any more problematic than egoism is as a moral theory. And without a doubt Objectivism's political philosophy is a libertarian one. However, that doesn't imply that Objectivists must accept the arguments of non-Objectivist libertarians, although many of them are compatible with Objectivist and worth attending to. The point is merely a descriptive one. So I'm not a Libertarian, but I am libertarian -- and so are other Objectivists, whether they recognize it or not. Chris Sciabarra then posted some interesting historical details: I appreciate and agree with the points made by Dr. B. and Diana. I was once intrigued by the fact that Ayn Rand had told writer Joan Kennedy Taylor that her politics was "libertarian." And, at one time, Rand had little or no problem describing it as such or drawing parallels with it---whatever her discomfort with the word (as so well expressed in Nathaniel's essay). Just yesterday, in fact, I heard a very interesting interview with Rand. In contrast to conservatism, which she rejected as "futile and disastrous," Rand states in that interview: "People like the libertarians, [Ludwig] von Mises or [Henry] Hazlitt [both of whom Rand knew and highly recommended to her readers], do not advocate a mixed economy. The so-called libertarians are much better in that respect." Note: She wasn't condemning the group as a whole---the way Peter Schwartz did---as a bunch of whim-worshipping tribalists. She goes on: "The libertarians are a loose group; they do not have a specific program; the differences will vary from individual to individual. In a general sense, our main differences from the libertarians is in the fact that the libertarians are concerned primarily, and some of them, exclusively, with economics and politics. When it comes to their philosophical frame of reference, it varies from man to man, and we are usually in disagreement with their philosophical framework, but in agreement with most of their economic theories. Now, Objectivism is not a political-economic movement, at least not primarily. Objectivism is primarily a philosophical movement, which means that we derive our politics and economics from a certain philosophical framework . . . We do agree with much of their political-economic views." (See "Conservatism versus Objectivism: An Interview with Ayn Rand" circa 1963-64) I suspect that the debate over the use of "libertarianism" reached fever pitch because of the anarchists within libertarian politics. But describing Objectivist politics as "libertarian" is no different than describing Objectivist ethics as "egoist." OBVIOUSLY, Objectivism has enormous differences with other forms of libertarianism and other forms of egoism, but that doesn't make it any less libertarian in the political sphere or egoist in the ethical sphere. It's all a question of classification. And since libertarianism as a political doctrine is simply the 20th century equivalent of classical liberalism, and that use of the word "liberal" in today's political culture has been preempted by its use to describe "welfare statism," I, quite frankly, do not see what the big deal is. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member, of the Libertarian Party. I'm a registered independent. I occasionally vote for LP candidates when I despise the choices among the major parties. Whatever my voting patterns, I can certainly attest to the fact that small-l libertarianism is much broader than upper-case Libertarian Party Politics. Of course, as Monica Pignotti noted, Rand did certainly later condemn Libertarianism. She might have had good reason to equate the Libertarian Party with the political philosophy of libertarianism at the time, but these days, libertarianism is a thriving political philosophy completely separate from Libertarian Party. Update: My views on these topics have changed significantly since I originally wrote this post. The details can be found on my web page on The Many False Friends of Objectivism. In particular, 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 Anti-Anti-Americanism By Diana Hsieh @ 8:58 AM It seems that anti-American non-Americans are almost as stupid and just as ridiculous as our very own anti-war protestors. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis A Plausible Explanation By Diana Hsieh @ 1:25 AM Jacob Levy offers a compelling explanation of why American, British, and Australian troops are fighting together in Iraq, but fellow Anglosphereans Canada, Ireland, and New Zealand are sitting on their hands at home. Very interesting... E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, March 25, 2003 Conventional Radicals for Capitalism By Diana Hsieh @ 6:53 AM In discussing anarchism, Jimmy Wales said this on Atlantis today: Keep in mind, here, that I agree 100% with the Objectivist politics. In terms of my own political and philosophical views, I'm a very dull sort of ordinary Objectivist with no fancy frills like determinism or anarchy or anything of the sort. :-) As radicals for capitalism go, I'm very conventional. Heh. More seriously, later in the post Jimmy wrote: In Ayn Rand's "The Nature of Government", _Virtue of Selfishness_, she offers a "reduction" of the concept of government, asking "Do men need such an institution -- and why?" 1. If we read that essay carefully, taking full note of the wider context of the concepts of Objectivism, we can pull out and analyze _just_ those aspects of her discussion of government that would have direct bearing on the question of whether (and to what degree) the institution of "organized force" must be a monopoly. My own belief is that Ayn Rand did not treat this question with as much detail as it can be treated today, because much anarchocapitalist theory was unknown to her at that time. (Because it hadn't yet been developed!) 2. After we've done that, we can consider the question "Does the maintenance of such a monopoly necessarily involve rights violations?" I think the answer is that it does not, that Childs argument on that point fails, but I think that the question *is* a compelling question that deserves a detailed answer. I agree with Jimmy that the government-as-coercive-monopoly argument isn't very compelling. (Basically, it's an extremely rationalistic argument.) I'm far more intrigued by the challenge to minarchy posed by David Friedman's public good argument, as it indicates that pressure to expand government power is inherent in institution of government itself. I discussed this problem in an 1997 OWL essay on anarchism: In Chapter 39 of Machinery of Freedom, David Friedman makes an interesting argument as to why minarchy produces worse laws than anarchy and therefore it is in the nature of governments to expand in size and power. If I understand him correctly, he argues that in a minarchy, good law is a public good, while in anarcho-capitalism, bad law is a public good. A particular good is a "public good" if (1) one person's consumption of the good does not interfere with another's (non-rivalry) and (2) it is very difficult, if not impossible, to produce the good for some people but not others (non-exclusion). Because of these limitations, public goods will be underproduced in the marketplace, even when the value exceeds the production costs. For example, national defense is a public good, because my enjoyment of our system of national defense does not impinge upon my neighbors' enjoyment of it and because we cannot create a system of national defense in which I receive the benefits, but my neighbors do not. Under a system of limited government, good (rights-respecting) laws have both the features of public goods. Imagine that a new, simpler tax code has been instituted. My taking advantage of the new tax code does not prevent or inhibit anyone else from doing exactly the same thing. Additionally, I can take advantage of the tax code even if I did nothing to promote it or even voted against it. The new tax laws apply to everyone in the jurisdiction. On the other hand, bad law is often a private good. Particular individuals can benefit greatly from special interest legislation to give subsidies to, for example, only sugar growers. As a result, as David Friedman notes, "any attempt to improve the society as a whole is caught in the ... public good trap. Anything I do to make America freer will benefit everyone; the small part of the benefit that is going to me is rarely sufficient to justify my doing very much." (I>Machinery of Freedom, 157) In a anarcho-capitalist system, on the other hand, good law is a private good, while bad law is a public good. Friedman writes, "Good law is still expensive -- I must spend time and money determining which protection agency will best serve me -- but having decided what I want, I get what I pay for. The benefit of my wise purchase goes to me, so I have an incentive to purchase wisely. It is now the person who wishes to reintroduce government who is caught in the public good problem. He cannot abolish anarchy and reintroduce government for himself alone; he must do it for everyone or for no one." (Machinery of Freedom, 158) This public good-private good analysis both shows why our government (despite an amazing constitution) has grown into a leviathan over the past 200 years and indicates that anarcho-capitalism is likely to be far more stable a system. Because the apparent instability of minarchy over time is of great concern to me, I am very interested to hear the minarchist response to these criticisms. Is Friedman's analysis of the issues here correct? Is it possible to compensate for the public good effects in minarchy through economic incentives? (In other words, I'm uninterested in appeals to how moral people will act in the hypothetical minarchy. I don't hold much stock in the moral fiber of individuals when promises of unearned money and the trappings of power beckon.) Although I'm not nearly as sympathetic to anarchism as I was when I wrote that essay, I still think that addressing this public good problem is critical to the case for limited government. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, March 23, 2003 Bought and Hacked! By Diana Hsieh @ 9:58 AM My friend Tom Stone informs me that the Ayn Rand Institute has bought Second Renaissance, which runs Ayn Rand Bookstore and Objectivist Conferences. The announcement of the purchase confirms the news. In more exciting news the Ayn Rand Bookstore has been hacked by some vaguely coherent (although not very funny or smart) anti-war hacktivists. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, March 22, 2003 Liberate California! By Diana Hsieh @ 3:38 PM Paul just suggested that our armed forces liberate California after we're done with Iraq. The territory is about the same size, with a great deal of desert. And Californians are living under a repressive government. Furthermore, the repressed minority of conservatives in the areas north of San Francisco would likely be willing to take up arms to overthrow the Davis regime. I just hope that the Liberals don't set the oil fields on fire... Ah, it's good to have my husband at home again. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Western Superiority By Diana Hsieh @ 9:18 AM Reporting a story on Iraqi officers stealing their soldiers' pay, Instapundit makes fun of this ridiculous Samuel Huntington quote permanently displayed on Salam Pax's blog: The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do. Instapundit responds: But having officers who don't abscond with their troops' pay is, in fact, one example of the superiority of Western ideas, and it's one that translates rather directly into superiority where organized violence is concerned. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Dictatorships like Saddam's -- which based on history and prevalence might be regarded as the "natural" form of human governance -- turn out to be lousy at war. Democracies embodying Western ideas turn out to be a lot better. That's not a coincidence, however much non-Westerners might wish to believe that it is. I would add that the military might of Western culture is a direct outgrowth of our scientific progress over the past three centuries or so, progress that was only made possible though the philosophical achievements of the Enlightenment. The West's skills in "applying organized violence" are not some bizarre primary feature, but rather a direct consequence of "the superiority of its ideas or values or religion." We are fascinated with science. We value truth and progress. We are willing to set aside the superstitions of religion in the face of scientific fact. These ideas and values are never found in abundance in primitive cultures... and they make all the difference in the world. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, March 21, 2003 Smart and Dumb By Diana Hsieh @ 8:27 PM Stephen Hicks is a smart guy... and some of the people responding to him are clearly ... shall we say ... "philosophically challenged." E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Important Informational Update About Bigfoot By Diana Hsieh @ 8:07 PM Terry blogs about Bigfoot documentaries: By the end of these documentaries, it was clear that the makers wanted you to believe in at least the possibility of Bigfoot's existence. I came away believing that Bigfoot shows how powerful boredom, a gorilla suit, a movie camera and a case of Olympia beer can be on the human psyche. In the words of Our Bounteous Blogging Lord: Heh. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Snowed In, Plowed Out By Diana Hsieh @ 7:58 PM Hooray! I've been plowed out! The dogs and I celebrated by getting the mail out of our now-lopsided mailbox. (The impact of the snow from plowing the street has pushed it about 30 degrees off-kilter.) Thankfully, Paul will be able to come home tonight, rather than spending a fourth night at the Aurora hospital. Even better, he'll be bringing two gallons of my drug of choice: MILK! I made "war cookies," i.e. walnut chocolate chip cookies made (unintentionally) in the opening hours of the war, but I ran out of milk last night. Gack! Cookies and water is less than satisfying. I wasn't aware of how burdensome the confinement was to the dogs until our walk down the driveway. Well, I walked. They leapt and wiggled and ran and bounded and panted and sniffed and chased and scurried and... We were going down to the barn twice a day to feed the horses, but that clearly wasn't terribly satisfying to them. They clearly appreciated the room to run. My easy walk tonight was nothing like yesterday evening's pre-plowing hopeless attempt to get down the 500 feet or so to the road. (I only made it about 50 feet, as snow was simply too deep and heavy.) But tonight was a pleasant and easy jaunt. Hooray! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Shock and Awe By Diana Hsieh @ 10:20 AM Fox News is reporting that "shock and awe" has begun. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Changes in the Press By Diana Hsieh @ 9:01 AM Jed Babbin and I have had similar thoughts about the consequences of embedding the press. He writes: For those of us who wore the uniform in the Vietnam era, the most amazing thing is not the capability of our soldiers, or their equipment, or the level of success so far. It's not the calm, tough aura around the field grade and senior commanders. That stuff is all the norm. The amazement comes from the attitude of the press embedded with the troops. During Vietnam, we shunned the press. They were the enemy, almost as much as the North Vietnamese were. They couldn't be trusted, and deserved the mushroom treatment. The "five o'clock follies" body count briefings were meant to keep them at a distance. But the Newly Embedded Pressies (or "NEPs" if I am permitted to invent an acronym) are learning much in a prolonged lesson denied their predecessors. They are getting to know -- and love -- the guys on the line. Being there, seeing these young folks, their intelligence, training and enormous capability will implant a respect for the American soldier no other experience can. Big Dog Don Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers have built a bridge to the press that will pay off in fairness and understanding for decades to come. This change is a Very Good Thing. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, March 20, 2003 Political Emotivism By Diana Hsieh @ 6:42 PM Peter Saint-Andre has a nice tidbit on political emotivism up on his blog. Based on interviews I've seen, a "Boo Bush!" emotivism is indeed the driving motivation of many war protestors. But, as Peter notes, Republicans often suffer a similar knee-jerk reactionism of "Boo Clinton!" So how about a more general "Boo statist politicians!" instead? :-) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, March 19, 2003 Snow Totals Update By Diana Hsieh @ 6:06 PM The National Weather Service reports that Sedalia has received 54 inches of snow as of 4:20 pm. And the snow is still falling... but it's expected to taper off tonight. Wow. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Snow Update and Pictures By Diana Hsieh @ 12:49 PM I'm not sure how much snow has fallen as of this morning. My yardstick was nowhere to be found, presumably buried under the snow. (For that matter, so was the Nissan Sentra parked outside.) It was very difficult to get down to the barn this morning to feed the horses. It's only about 150 yards, but that's a long, long way when then snow is up to your waist and higher. On my first attempt, I got about 15 feet before a chilly collapse into the snow. I had rather unpleasant visions of myself stuck in the snow halfway to the barn, cold and exhausted, unable to move. So I headed back to the house, bundled up in long underwear, snow pants, and tightly bound work boots, and headed out again. I managed to get down to the barn using a slightly less deep path, one with snow only to my thighs. Both of the dogs even managed to follow me, although not without a fair amount of struggle. The horses are pretty much locked into the barn by the snow, although the overhang provides enough of a path to get to the water trough. They were very happy to be fed, so I'm glad that I made the effort to reach them this morning. I only hope that the path I cut this morning isn't completely obliterated tonight. I'm sure Paul won't be coming home tonight. (No other radiologists could make it into Aurora today. While he takes a break this morning, cases are being read remotely from Swedish by two radiologists who live in walking distance of that hospital.) And I'm sure I won't be going to school on Thursday. (Campus might be closed again... I hope it is.) Our driveway is scheduled to be plowed tomorrow, but that might be difficult, given how heavy the snow is. Frankly, I figure that I'll be lucky if I leave the house in a week. As much of a pain as this blizzard is, the precipitation is most welcome, given the drought we've been having these past two years. Snow now means fewer fires this summer, after all. Okay, so here's the fun part, the pictures. Just remember that the ground is more than 3 feet below the snow level. This is our house, as seen from down the driveway. The lefthand lump on the right side of the photo is my old Nissan Sentra. You can also see the large overhang of snow from the outside here, shown below too. So this is the overhang of snow, as seen from the garage. I have to pass underneath it to get to the path to the barn, which worries me greatly. I have no desire for it to fall on me or the doggies, after all. This is the barn as seen from our covered west porch. One of our trees. Another poor tree. Note the top of a 4 foot fencepost to the left of it. Yet another poor tree. So, America might have many allies in the war, but I'm feeling pretty darn isolated lately. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, March 18, 2003 False Excuses By Diana Hsieh @ 9:53 PM While snowed in today, I finished a major revision of my paper on false excuses. It's been restructured, retitled, and reworked. (The old version is still available here.) I'm very pleased with the end result, delightfully enough. I took time off from other work to revise the essay so that I could submit a superdooper good version to the "Jentzsch Prize in Philosophy," a departmental graduate student essay contest. The deadline was today, so I was working down to the wire... but that's nothing new. I'll be starting the process of journal submission sometime in early April. I'm not sure what my first choice will be, but most likely an applied ethics journal. As always, I'd love comments and feedback on the new version. Since I'm trying to get it published, I won't be posting it on the web site, but I can e-mail it as an attachment to anyone interested in helping me make it just that much better. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Snow! By Diana Hsieh @ 2:28 PM When I went to bed last night, about 5 inches of snow lay on the ground. By morning, there was 15 inches. Now my yardstick reads 24 inches, with many more inches on the way. As you might have guessed, I didn't drive the 60 miles up to Boulder for classes today, although the university is officially open. 9 pm Update: The local news just reported the official snow figures. Sedalia has received 31 inches of snow, which is consistent with my measurements. It is expected to snow all night and tomorrow for another 7-14 inches. I haven't found the figures for Boulder yet, but the university has already closed down for Wednesday. Frankly, I wonder how many people showed up a classes today, given the heavy snowfall. I'd probably be stuck sleeping in the cruddy grad lounge in Boulder if I had tried to go to classes today. *shudder* 10 pm Update: Paul won't be coming home tonight. He is working 3pm-11pm shifts all week long, so instead of driving 2 hours and 30 miles of dangerous roads home from Aurora and then reversing the trip tomorrow afternoon, he's spending the night at the hospital. (Nearby hotels were booked.) I just hope to see him tomorrow night! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, March 17, 2003 The Best Link Request Letter Ever By Diana Hsieh @ 2:09 PM Terry wins the prize for the best link request letter ever! It's pleasant! It's descriptive! It's funny! But don't take my word for it, see for yourself: Hello Diana, I'm sure you remember me - my best friend is Jimmy Wales, and I joined you and Paul on my first time ever shooting a hand gun! I've done that many times since then, thanks in part to your's and Paul's great instruction. Now, down to the proverbial business. I read the post on your blog about Jimmy not linking to your blog, and his being a blog snob. I got to thinking, maybe Diana will link to *my* blog :) It's called American PhotoBlog, and it's based upon pictures I've taken of natural wonders, historical artifacts, or about anything else I find interesting. I write my 2 cents about the pictures as well. Have a look at http://tfresh.blogspot.com. I'll gladly link to your blog in return. Unfortunately, I'm not the most HTML adept individual, as every time I try to put links in the blog template, they never work. Once I have this figured out, I won't be a blog snob, and I'll link to you. I hope things are going well for you and Paul in the great Rocky Mountains. Drop me an e-mail sometime and let me know how life is for you. Take care, Terry Terry's pictures are awesome! Go check them out! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Oh Shit! By Diana Hsieh @ 12:07 PM Paul has the latest news on the mysterious and dangerous pneumonia that is spreading rapidly through the world. Unlike other recent disease outbreaks, this is dangerous and deadly to even the strong and healthy. Even worse, no one has recovered from this illness yet. This sounds really bad. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink