| 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.
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
 |
|
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.
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
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.
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
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.
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
Pro-War
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:39 AM
Thomas Sowell comments on who is pro-war... and it's not who you might think.
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
| 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?
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
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!
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
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.
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
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!
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
Blogshares!
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:30 PM
NoodleFood apparently isn't worth much, but at least it's listed on the exchange!
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
| 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!
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
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.
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
Honesty and Affairs
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:52 AM
Another raging debate on the Nathaniel Branden Forum is the moral status of Branden and Rand concealing their affair from others, both before and after the break. Here's my take:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, mpignotti2001 wrote:
> While I'd grant that keeping such a secret from very close friends is
> not necessarily psychologically the healthiest thing to do, I don't
> think it is immoral and that people do have a right to decide what
> they tell or don't tell friends.
I agree with Monica on this point. Neither Rand nor Branden were under any obligation to disclose their affair to friends. It was nobody's business but their own (and their spouses).
But Rand was obligated to tell the truth about the reason for her break with Branden, which she did not. If she wished to keep the affair private, as would have been reasonable, she could have cited irreconcilable personal differences and even the Brandens' dishonesty. Instead, she fabricated all sorts of false justifications in "To Whom It May Concern" -- and failed to mention the real reason for the break.
In Basic Principles of Objectivism, Nathaniel Branden argues that honesty requires that we take responsibility for the reasonable inferences of others. Misleading technical truths are not honest. Even if every word that Rand wrote about the Branden's in "To Whom It May Concern" were true, the letter would still fail that test miserably.
Ayn Rand's dishonesty in the aftermath of her break with Nathaniel Branden is certainly disappointing to me, but hardly devastating. I admire Rand as a novelist and a philosopher, but her personal conduct is ultimately irrelevant to me.
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
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.
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
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.
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
|
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...
Link / Noodles / Trackback
|
|
| 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.
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
|
|
