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

Wednesday, April 30, 2003 Republican Dreamin' By Diana Hsieh @ 10:15 PM Even in their wet dreams, the Republicans never imagined something so wonderful as the possibility that Lyndon LaRouche might be included in the nationally broadcast presidential debate on May 3rd. Apparently, various South Carolinian and other Democratic Party activists, including Joycelyn Elders, want him included. Frankly, I'm very interested in Kerry's and Leiberman's response to the man's take on energy policy: Now, the point is... Now, this goes back to a piece of scientific idiocy, which was understood already -- the problem was understood by Plato, already. The concept of power, as opposed to that idiot Aristotle's concept of energy. So, when people talk to you about nuclear energy, or solar energy, they're Aristotelean idiots, who shouldn't be talking. They should be monkeys, and not talk. They can chatter, but not talk. Because, the issue here is power. Now, power is reflected in various ways in terms of energy, relative to what people call energy. Power had two features, generally, descriptively, in the form of energy. This is not where power comes from, but this is what power reflects, in terms of energy language. One, is energy flux density. What is the intensity of energy, apparent energy, per square kilometer, cross section area of motion? It's called energy flux density. Now, compare the energy flux densities of various modes of power generation. Solar power is the least efficient. As a matter of fact, the use of solar power is insane. Because solar power has a very important use on this planet. Light. Light. What we want is more vegetables. We want more foliage. We want the deserts to bloom. What we want to do, is we want to get areas which are too hot, to cool down. We want more moderate weather. We want to turn the deserts into areas where people can live, under normal conditions. But wait, there's more! He lost me somewhere around the proposal about mango trees, I admit. I'm sure he won't be included... but oh what a thought! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Russsians Will Save Us By Diana Hsieh @ 11:13 AM Den Beste always seems to be ahead of the curve in his political analysis, which is why I find this commentary particularly noteworthy. Apparently, Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg are gunning for an EU-controlled military force independent of NATO. They've already decided to create a military command. The problem, Den Beste notes, is that there is little to command, as none of these countries have a substantial military. For various economic reasons, a buildup of forces seems unlikely. So, what shall be done? Den Beste writes: But never fear! Paris is on the case, and has a solution. Europe needs an independent military which is capable of "counterbalancing" the US, but doesn't want to pay for it. Europe needs a nation which actually has a force large enough to be credible, which can become a partner in Europe's defense so as to protect Europe from American aggression. (Which is to say, Europe needs a new free ride.) In short, Europe needs Russia to come in to Western Europe and save it from America. Which is why French defense minister Michèle Alliot-Marie is in Moscow right now, trying to talk up the idea. Russia can supply the troops, France can supply the commanders and the wisdom. Western Europe will finally be liberated from oppressive and cruel American military occupation through the agency of the friendly and solicitous Russian Army. I do rather wonder just how this idea is going to play in places like Prague and Warsaw and Bucharest, who have a somewhat different opinion of the Russians than the French evidently have. Indeed. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Morally Sickening By Diana Hsieh @ 10:48 AM In response to Virginia Postrel on the abuse of the word brave, Glenn Reynolds writes: What really interests me is that people think that they've made a moral argument against genetic engineering when they say that the idea "sickens" them. The idea of sodomy "sickens" some people, too. So does the idea of interracial marriage. So you feel ill. Why should I care? After all, pompous, empty-headed moralizing sickens me, and nobody's stopping that. As Glenn would say: Heh. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, April 28, 2003 Rapists on Campus By Diana Hsieh @ 10:46 PM This delightful news tidbit just arrived in my inbox. Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 22:37:15 -0600 (MDT) From: Vital Student E-memo <memofrom@Colorado.EDU> Subject: Crime Alert TO: All Boulder Campus Students FROM: CU Police SENDER: Jacqueline.Johnson@Colorado.EDU DATE: 04/28/03 SUBJECT: Crime Alert Dear Students: We are writing to provide an update on investigations into recent assaults in Boulder and to ask your help if you have any related information. The University of Colorado Police and the Boulder Police are investigating three recent assaults upon women which occurred recently in Boulder. On early Sunday morning, April 20, 2003, at about 1:30 a.m., a woman was sexually assaulted north of Norlin Library on the Boulder campus. In that incident, two males accosted the victim. One male sexually assaulted the woman while the other stood by as a lookout. The suspects were described as being white college-age males. The male who acted as a lookout has brown hair. The male who assaulted the victim has red hair. A composite drawing of the male who sexually assaulted the victim is available at the UCPD web site, www.Colorado.edu/police. On Saturday morning, April 26, 2003, at about 3:00 a.m., a woman was attacked by two unknown assailants on the Boulder Creek bike path near Boulder High School. Witnesses in the area heard the victim scream, and came to her aid. The witnesses chased the two suspects, but were unable to catch them. The suspects were described as being white males, both about 5 feet, 6 inches tall. One might have been wearing a blue hooded sweatshirt. Baseball caps were found at the scene which may belong to the suspects. One cap was a blue and orange Miami Dolphins cap and the other was black with the letter -A- on it. Photographs of the hats and additional information is available at the Boulder Police website: www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pressrelease/2003/0428.html. On Sunday morning about 2:00 a.m., a woman reported that she was physically assaulted by a lone male in the Hill area. The attack occurred in the west alley of the 1100 block of 13th Street, behind the Sink. The suspect was described as a white male in his early twenties, and was -short and skinny.- He was wearing a black shirt with an unknown logo on it, and khaki pants. We encourage all citizens, including our students, to exercise safety precautions that can help prevent an attack. These include using free escorts available by NightRide/NightWalk which can be reached by calling (303) 492-SAFE, walk with friends at night time, carry a safety whistle, and be aware of surroundings. A map of emergency telephones on campus is available at the UCPD website, www.colorado.edu/police/safety/et.html. Safety whistles and copies of UCPD's Safety Information and Resource Guide are available without cost at UCPD, 1050 Regent Drive. They want me to carry of safety whistle! A safety whistle! I'll be sure to blow it loudly while waving the "UCPD's Safety Information and Resource Guide" in any attacker's face. Christ. I want my Ruger to protect myself from rapists on campus, not a god-damned useless fucking safety whistle. But the university forbids students with concealed carry permits from carrying on campus, even though state law permits it. So let's just say it outright: The Administration of the University of Colorado at Boulder is objectively pro-rape. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Helpful Tips for New Bloggers By Diana Hsieh @ 1:14 PM Eugene has some helpful tips for new bloggers looking to generate traffic. (I haven't always followed his recommendations myself, but his reasons are good, so I'll likely do so from now on.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, April 26, 2003 Flying Naked By Diana Hsieh @ 10:42 PM Wow, I'm glad I got this pressing issue cleared up: "A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman says there's no specific prohibition against flying naked." Thanks to Dave Barry for telling me, as usual, more than I needed to know. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Disaffected Muslim By Diana Hsieh @ 11:19 AM Last night, I stopped by Disaffected Muslim for only the second time, a really fascinating blog written by a 25 year old American woman ("Fatima") deeply immersed in a critical personal investigation of Islam. (Her basic story is here. The bit about reading The Satanic Verses in the local mosque is priceless!) I'm very much impressed with her deeply thoughtful, critical, and exploratory approach to Islam. It's pretty rare to see that level of critical and voracious insight in any new adopter of a religion or philosophy. She's also a very clear and engaging writer, which makes her posts a delight to read. Frankly, I suspect that Islam will not ultimately satisfy her, but I hope that she continues to blog on the subject in the meantime! I was particularly interested in this post on the history of early copies and recitations of the Koran, as my impression was always that Islam had a solid textual basis, unlike Christianity. (The excellent Teaching Company course The New Testament has an excellent discussion of the problems of very-non-original New Testament texts, as well as a fascinating comparison of the various versions of the Gospels.) The modern Koran might well be a more faithful record than the New Testament, but it's not exactly a single, original, written-at-the-time text. Fatima gives some good background in her post and links to this interesting article from The Atlantic Monthly on archeological findings of early versions of the Koran which differ from the modern version. In looking for an update on the findings about these early Korans, I came across this letter to the editor about the Atlantic Monthly article. After quoting some of the article, the author writes: "Please ensure that these scholars are not given further access to the documents. Also please rebury them or if they are not exact reproductions, please burn them. Allah help us against our enemies." Ugh. Letters from a wide variety of perspectives also appeared in The Atlantic Monthly a few months later. Okay, back to real work for me! (Big paper on moral judgment for my ethics class, Camp Indecon lessons, etc.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, April 25, 2003 People Like Me By Diana Hsieh @ 10:04 AM Lileks had some interesting comments on this ecological footprint quiz. It purports to tell you, based upon a few simple questions, how many planets would be needed if everyone lived like you. (I needed 10.1 planets. I was hoping for a higher score, but 10.1 is pretty good, I suppose.) As Lileks discovered, your score heavily depends upon where you live. (Apparently, people in Bangladesh are just so much more ecologically pure than we are.) In any case, the quiz is just so wrong in all the usual many doom-and-gloom, ecological-nightmare-just-around-the-corner ways. And it's Kantian moral premise is pretty, um, interesting too. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, April 22, 2003 An American Idol Prayer By Diana Hsieh @ 7:12 PM Dear Lord, If you really are almighty and just, please do not grant Carmen Rasmusen another week of protection from the justice of her dismissal from American Idol. Please Lord, I beseech you. Watching two far more talented singers dismissed before her these past two weeks has been most painful. Another week of the same would be intolerable. It would shatter my faith in a rational, benevolent universe. Your Loving Servant Who Believes in You Not a Whit, Diana Hsieh P.S. Can you please send plagues of locusts or something to the houses of all those who voted for her? I'd be much obliged. Update: Given Josh Gracin's abysmal performance this evening, I'd be okay with him being booted instead of Carmen this week. But then next week, Carmen must go! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, April 21, 2003 Office Furniture By Diana Hsieh @ 10:41 PM Last night, I broke my office chair. Really. I must have stressed out the metal around one of the casters repeatedly leaning over to pick up papers that failed to properly insert themselves into the trash can. The chair just couldn't take the stress anymore. It died a quiet, slightly lopsided, immobile death. I had actually been meaning to replace the chair for some time. It was an el cheapo kneeling chair that Paul had bought (and later discarded in favor of his Herman Miller chair) before we were married. The chair helped keep my carpal tunnel problems to a minimum, which tend to flare up if I cannot sit close to my desk or if forced to use The Contraption of Terrible Wrist Evil otherwise known the keyboard tray. I was planning on replacing the (now-broken) chair because it was fairly harsh on my shins due to pathetic padding. However, I use the term "planning" here rather loosely. If my chair hadn't broken, I might not have gotten around to replacing it for another few years. Generally speaking, I'm about as efficient in running such optional errands as a Soviet-era bureaucrat. So today, I bought my new chair. (Yes, it took all of about 10 minutes.) It's another kneeling chair, but a fancy one with big Tempur-pedic foam cushions. A big step up for me, office-chair-wise! Unfortunately, it was way, way, way to tall for my desk, even at its shortest. I considered raising the height of the desk, but gave up after mangling a can of kitty food during the "how high?" test phase. Paul and I examined, poked, and prodded the chair, considering the various methods of lowering the height. Finally, I made an executive decision: I would carefully drill two additional large holes on the bottom-back bar to lower the seat. It took a while, but the holes were drilled and the chair was reassembled. So I am now basking in the glory of my new chair. Well, at least my shins are happy. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, April 19, 2003 Colorado Weather By Diana Hsieh @ 3:35 PM We're having a day of Real Colorado Weather here today. It's rained. It's hailed. Now it's snowing. As Homer would say, "Ummmm, precipitation..." E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, April 17, 2003 Overloaded Meta-ethics By Diana Hsieh @ 9:01 AM I'm completely overloaded with work at the moment, so blogging may be light for a few weeks. The following comments on meta-ethics have been waiting in the "ready" folder for just such a dry spell. I wrote them last May as I was struggling to prepare the third lecture of "Objectivism 101" on Ayn Rand's metaethics. I never completed them, as there was no need. They're pretty decent, although only in nascent form in many ways. The ellipses separate out some different approaches and formulations. I'm currently having difficulties with construction the third lecture of Objectivism 101. The first lecture primarily deals with the nature and importance of philosophy. The second lecture concerns the basics of the Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. So in the third lecture, I turn to the foundations of ethics. The problem is, as Will Thomas noted, that the material is inherently geeky. It's very abstract and often technical, dealing with issues like life as the standard, happiness as the purpose, the need for moral principles, the relationship between mind and body, egoism versus altruism, the nature of sacrifice, and so on. So making this material concrete and relevant to everyday life is quite a challenge. So here's a stab at how I can structure this lecture. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that defines code of values to guide actions and choices. Ethics primarily concerns two issues: what we ought to pursue in life and how we ought to pursue those things. What we ought to pursue are values. How we ought to pursue those values are virtues. Most philosophers start ethics with the questions: What is the highest value? What should we pursue? The answers vary wildly. The Muslim says that the highest value is submission to God's will. The hedonist claims that pleasure is the highest value. The utilitarian claims the greatest good for the greatest number as the highest value. The Christian says that the highest value is salvation through Jesus Christ. So it seems that there are no facts about ethics, just opinions. In contrast, Ayn Rand began her ethical inquiry with far more fundamental questions. She asked: Why do we need ethics at all? What is the purpose of ethics? AR's essay "The Objectivist Ethics" in VOS answers this question. AR notes that all living creatures face a fundamental alternative of life or death. And that only through life do any other alternatives, any other values, exist for us. So the individual's own life is his/her highest value, what should be pursued above all else. So the purpose of ethics is to guide our choices and actions towards that highest value of our own lives. Ethics ought to be a "how-to manual" for life. It tells us what values we need to pursue and what virtues we need to effectively pursue those values. This is the foundation for a science of ethics. So in Objectivism, we say that life is the standard of value. That means that we judge something as good or bad based on its impact on our own lives. But we also say that happiness is the purpose of life. In other words, we don't want to live a long and miserable life. We want to live a long and happy life! Most ethics make one of two claims about the relationship between happiness and ethics. They either say that happiness is impossible here on this earth or that happiness is irrelevant to ethics. But in the Objectivist ethics, happiness is the reward for living a moral life. (Sounds like a good deal, doesn't it?) A moral life is not a life of pain and suffering. A moral life is a happy life. It is a life of accomplishing rational goals and taking pleasure in your success. You might not be successful all the time, but with a rational morality grounded in your life and happiness, success and happiness is the normal state of affairs. So we know that life is the standard of value and that happiness is the purpose of life. So what sort of values do we need to pursue and what sort of virtues do we need to cultivate within ourselves to achieve that long and happy life? Let's first look at some rational values. We start our list with those things that we literally can't live without, like air, shelter, water, and food. Without these values, we would die in a fairly short time. But these material values don't just magically appear on our doorstep. We have to go seek them out. So knowledge of how to obtain these values is itself a value. We need knowledge of how to grow crops, of how to handle and cook meat safely, of how to negotiate a trade with someone else. So knowledge of what will promote our life and what will destroy it is a value. Such knowledge doesn't come automatically or even easily to us. We have to use our senses and our reason to gain this knowledge of the world. And we also need other rational people with whom to trade. So reason and other people are also values. But reason doesn't function automatically either. So knowledge of how to use reason effectively, otherwise known as epistemology, is also a value. We need to know that using reason requires us to be in mental focus, to attend to the facts of reality, and to use the method of objectivity. We need to know the rules of logical inference and the fallacies of reasoning to avoid. ... Now imagine that every day, you asked yourself: So where will I find food today? Where will I find water and shelter? You probably wouldn't last too long because you wouldn't be planning in advance. You wouldn't be planning for that drought or that infestation of beetles that destroyed all the bananas. Living hand to mouth is likely to result in a rather short life. So in order to achieve our goal of a long and happy life, we need to identify the values that promote our lives in the long run. What do we need to achieve a long and happy life? We need knowledge of the world, like knowledge of how to obtain and store food. We need to know that standing under a tree during a thunderstorm is unsafe. We need to know when to take antibiotics. We need to know who our friends are. And we also need to know how to gain knowledge. We need to know how to use our faculty of reason effectively. ... For example, trade with other people is a value because it allows people to specialize in a particular area, instead of forcing people do meet all their needs all by themselves. And we need to identify the ways in which we can effectively pursue them consistent with out life and happiness. Those are virtues. For example, honesty is a virtue because people will not want to trade with me if I lie about the terms of the exchange. And thus begins the science of ethics. So let's pause here to notice what the Objectivist ethics is not. It doesn't advocate absolute moral duties, like the Ten Commandments. It doesn't advocate acting on feelings, like that dishonesty is wrong because it will make you feel guilty. In the Objectivist ethics, we are deriving moral principles from the facts of reality in the context of pursuing our own life and happiness. As a result, Objectivism doesn't advocate a moral ideal of self-sacrifice and service to others. Objectivism rejects the moral ideal of altruism, where actions are moral if and only if they benefit someone else. Rather, Objectivism advocates a moral ideal of egoism, where actions are moral if they benefit the self. I'll be substantially editing "Objectivism 101" in May, after school winds down and my Camp Indecon curriculum is complete. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, April 14, 2003 CNN Looking Even Worse By Diana Hsieh @ 12:54 PM Opinion Journal has a telling piece by Franklin Foer on CNN's compromised coverage of Iraq. (I blogged some comments and links on this story a few days ago.) Foer writes: Of course, Mr. Jordan may feel he deserves a pinch of credit for coming clean like this. But this admission shouldn't get him any ethical journalism trophies. For a long time, CNN denied that its coverage skimped on truth. While I researched a story on CNN's Iraq coverage for the New Republic last October, Mr. Jordan told me flatly that his network gave "a full picture of the regime." In our conversation, he challenged me to find instances of CNN neglecting stories about Saddam's horrors. If only I'd had his Times op-ed! Wow. Foer also points out that CNN doesn't seem to have learned anything from this incident. We have every reason they are still sucking up to the regimes in Cuba, Syria, and other totalitarian states. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tax Reform By Diana Hsieh @ 10:13 AM Dave Barry's tax reform proposal would result in a much thinner Congress, I think. Here's my proposal, which is based on the TV show Survivor: We put the entire Congress on an island. All the food on this island is locked inside a vault, which can be opened only by an ordinary American taxpayer named Bob. Every day, the congresspersons are given a section of the Tax Code, which they must rewrite so that Bob can understand it. If he can, he lets them eat that day; if he can't, he doesn't. Or, he can give them food either way. It doesn't matter. The main thing is, we never let them off the island. Now that's a reality show worth watching! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, April 13, 2003 A Loss By Diana Hsieh @ 6:37 PM E.G. Ross, the editor of The Objective American, died Thursday as a result of a massive cerebral hemorrhage. He had been in the hospital for a number of weeks after emergency surgery to repair a cerebral aneurism, but was making a good recovery. His death was unexpected. I was introduced to his site a few months ago by Objectivist friends. As I always enjoyed his writings, I was anxiously awaiting his return. I am deeply sorry that he is no longer be among us. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, April 12, 2003 CNN Deception By Diana Hsieh @ 10:34 AM The brouhaha over CNN's admission of withholding news unfavorable to Iraq in order to preserve their access to that country has a rather interesting history. Back in October of 2002, The New Republic published an article entitled Air Wars which argues that news outfits like CNN are under such tight restrictions that staying in Baghdad requires them to become shills for the regime. CNN's Baghdad Bureau Chief, Jane Arraf, wrote a scathing letter in response (second from the bottom) arguing that CNN's coverage was not compromised by the restrictions and monitoring of the regime. Even more interesting was what I heard on Brit Hume last night. After that TNR piece, some CNN executive (Eason Jordan himself, I think) flatly denied any withholding of news in order to preserve access to Iraq in an interview with NPR. He said that CNN would rather pull out of Baghdad than slant coverage. (I wish I could find the exact quote, but web searches haven't proven fruitful.) Brit also had some interesting quotes from CNN reporters on how much Iraqis love Saddam, meaning that CNN wasn't just failing to report the news, but also happily spreading Saddam's propaganda. CNN needs a new slogan, perhaps something like "All the news that two-bit dictators want us to report." Update: A reader ("alee") was kind enough to post the URL of the earlier interview with Eason Jordan which was quoted by Brit Hume in the comments section. Here's the relevant quote: I mean we work very hard to report forthrightly, to report fairly and to report accurately and if we ever determine we cannot do that, then we would not want to be there; but we do think that some light is better than no light whatsoever. But what if the light is not adequately illuminating what it ought, namely the horrors of the regime? Also, when asked about a presence in Iraq during the expect Gulf War II, Jordan said: We'd very much like to be there if there's a second war; but-- we are not going to make journalistic compromises in an effort to make that happen, being mindful that in wartime there is censorship on all sides, and we're prepared to deal with a certain amount of censorship as long as it's not-- extreme, ridiculous censorship where -- which we've actually seen a number of cases in previous conflicts -- not just with Iraq. But-- sure! We want to be there, but it's --we don't want to be there come hell or high water. We want to be there if we can be there and operate as a responsible news organization. Of course, "journalistic compromises" by a something other than a "responsible news organization" is a pretty apt description of CNN's coverage between the two Gulf Wars. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Concealed Carry By Diana Hsieh @ 9:50 AM Check out the updated concealed carry map. The sea of blue is states with shall-issue laws. (Colorado just went from yellow to blue in the past few weeks. Yeah!) It makes sense that states in liberal New England often have restrictions on concealed carry. But the contingent of restricted states in the upper midwest just makes no sense to me. Anyone know the reasons? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Asking For It By Diana Hsieh @ 9:48 AM A woman is kidnapped, held in a basement dungeon for 2 years, raped daily, and burned with cigarettes for disobedience. Other women were also held captive. So what does the lawyer say about it? Michael Forsyth, Jamelske's lawyer, has advised his client not to grant interviews. "When the dust settles, we'll see there's a lot less to this than meets the eye," he said. "There's a big danger of a media circus erupting around this case," Forsyth said. "The impression may be given that this was a 'Silence of the Lambs' scenario, but I think after an intensive investigation, the authorities will find out it's not that kind of case." Wow. Yeah, I'm sure we'll find out that she asked for it. *eyes rolled* E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, April 10, 2003 It Takes the Breath Away By Diana Hsieh @ 10:44 AM I have to agree with Conrad: "Hong Kong will take your breath away" is indeed the worst-timed ad campaign ever. Haven't these guys heard of SARS? Update: Conrad's sympathy scale of deaths in Iraq is pretty funny too. I'll have to add him to my blogroll... after Terry, of course. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Short Live Saddam! By Diana Hsieh @ 10:41 AM For the past few weeks, I've been hoping that Saddam was very, very dead. But today's Bleat makes me hope that he lives... with access to satellite TV... for just a few more days. You hope Saddam’s alive to see this, to see the hailstorm of footwear, the burly men taking sledgehammers to his statue’s polished podium, to see the American flag draped over his cruel empty mug. Eat that, Saddam! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Damn Mormons! By Diana Hsieh @ 10:24 AM How on earth did Ricky Smith get voted off American Idol last night? Carmen was truly "ghastly" -- and she wasn't even in the bottom three! Did every single Mormon vote for her? Sheesh. I'm disgusted. (I didn't find out about the results until today, as the show ran over the half hour recorded by TiVo. I bet the judges were surprised.) Okay, back to more important matters, like, um, the war. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, April 09, 2003 Reason on the Sole of My Shoe By Diana Hsieh @ 4:12 PM If these incidents are the worst the anti-war crowd can dredge up, then this war is far from the hell proclaimed by Jesse Walker in Reason's Hit and Run. Oh, and did you like that bit of moral equivalence at the end of Walker's blog entry? Revolting. I think that I might go buy a copy of Reason... just so that I can beat it with the bottom of my shoe! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis A Tale of Two Cities By Diana Hsieh @ 3:45 PM I never read the original Dickens, but I really liked this Tale of Two Cities. It has cool picures and stuff too. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, April 08, 2003 All Your Base... By Diana Hsieh @ 10:19 PM Yo Saddam! All your base are belong to us! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, April 07, 2003 Plagiarism By Diana Hsieh @ 10:07 AM Plagiarizing in school papers is stupid. Plagiarizing in newspaper articles is really stupid. Plagiarizing in blog entries is sheer idiocy. But that's just what Sean-Paul Kelley of The Agonist did with material from the for-fee intelligence service Stratfor. The details are in this Wired News article. I'm honestly shocked by the number of people defending him on the message board. I don't think that Kelley's sin is unpardonable, but passing off the work of others as your own is a serious breach of integrity for any writer. And unfortunately, Kelley doesn't seem to be taking the issue very seriously himself. In recent days, I had been checking The Agonist more frequently for war updates, but I think I'll stick to The Command Post from now on. Blech. Update 1: I e-mailed Sean-Paul a note about the above post. In response, he pointed me to this post written a week before (in his words) "the press decided to have a field day with me." However, lack of time and equipment is hardly a justification for plagiarism. In any case, would "Via Stratfor" (even without a link) really have been so difficult to type in before copying and pasting? Blech again. Update 2: I just send this note to Glenn Reynolds, which I thought worth reposting here, even though it repeats some of the above: Is it just me, or does Sean-Paul Kelley seem to be digging himself into hole? He seems to think that a long-buried blog post saying that he does sometimes copy-and-paste (without notice or attribution) was warning enough to his readers. He argues that his time constraints and the difficulty of posting from a PDA justifies plagiarism. (Hmmm... let me try that line with my philosophy professors sometime... not!) Worst of all perhaps, in response to my post on the subject, he claimed in an e-mail that that the "press decided to have a field day" with him, as if he did nothing wrong in liberally reposting from a for-fee news service without citation. I think that unless Kelley mea culpas, this story is going to turn into a big hairy beast for him. But a mea culpa seems unlikely, as he just doesn't seem to understand that passing off the writing of others as your own is wrong, wrong, wrong. And that's a real shame. Update 3: Sean-Paul has finally really apologized. I'm very glad. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, April 05, 2003 Little Red Hen By Diana Hsieh @ 10:28 PM For some strange reason, I've had the story of the Little Red Hen in my head over the past few days. One day as the Little Red Hen was scratching in a field, she found a grain of wheat. "This wheat should be planted," she said. "Who will plant this grain of wheat ?" "Not I," said the Duck. "Not I," said the Cat. "Not I," said the Dog. "Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did. Soon the wheat grew to be tall and yellow. "The wheat is ripe," said the Little Red Hen. "Who will cut the wheat ?" "Not I," said the Duck. "Not I," said the Cat. "Not I," said the Dog. "Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did. When the wheat was cut, the Little Red Hen said, "Who will thresh this wheat?" "Not I," said the Duck. "Not I," said the Cat. "Not I," said the Dog. "Then I will," said the Little Red Hen.' And she did. When the wheat was all threshed, the Little Red Hen said, "Who'll take this wheat to the mill?" "Not I," said the Duck. "Not I," said the Cat. "Not I," said the Dog. "Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did. She took the wheat to the mill and had it ground into flour. Then she said, "Who will make this flour into bread ?" "Not I," said the, Duck. "Not I," said the Cat. "Not I," said the Dog. "Then I will," said the Little Red Hen. And she did. She made and baked the bread. Then she said, "Who will eat this bread?" "Oh! I will," said the Duck. "And I will," said the Cat. "And I will," said the Dog. "No, no!" said the Little Red Hen. "I will do that." And she did. Hmmm, now this little fable wouldn't have anything to do with the recent demands of countries who vigorously opposed the war in Iraq to be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq, now would it? Nah... E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, April 04, 2003 Iraqi Strategy By Diana Hsieh @ 10:26 PM According to this Fox News report, Saddam's regime uses "a combination of fixed sites and mobile vans in attempts to keep television signals intact." That explains why we haven't been able to keep the propaganda off the air for any significant stretch of time. So Saddam seems to have spent far more time ensuring the continual flow of propaganda than preparing his military for battle. On the surface, such a strategy seems completely idiotic. We are, after all, in a battle of bullets -- not of imagery. Then again, the Iraqi military never had a chance against our superior firepower. Keeping people in fear of Saddam's continued rule, however, has proven to be an obstacle in the war, albeit a temporary and minor one. And of course, such fear is only sustained with a steady diet of propaganda from Iraqi television. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Vulgarity By Diana Hsieh @ 8:46 PM Winds of Change shows us the effectiveness of a bit of well-placed vulgarity with this story: To nobodys surprise there were protestors today in DC, they attempted to disrupt the metro system and block the Key Bridge, a leading artery into DC from Northern Virginia. I got hosed twice because I come in from NoVA on the metro and it is raining hard which makes traffic worse any way. My commute was long and arduous and only caused further resentment for protestors... Anyway, I'll get to the point. I got off my train in Rosslyn because I had to use the bathroom and the train was moving quite slowly. When I was getting back on the train, there were protestors on the train platform handing out pamphlets on the evils of America. I politely declined to take one. An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a young (20ish) female protestor offered her a pamphlet, she politely declined. The young protestor put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a guesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, "Ma'am, don't you care about the children of Iraq?" The old woman looked up at her and said: "Honey, my first husband died in France during World War II so you could have the right to stand here and bad mouth your country. And if you touch me again, I'll stick this umbrella up your ass and open it." I'm glad to report that loud applause broke out among the onlookers and the young protestor was at a total loss for words. Oh, and did I fail to mention how much more effective vulgarity is when coming from the lips of an elderly woman? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Cable News By Diana Hsieh @ 5:14 PM Who has the upper hand in the cable news coverage? Well, it's not CNN. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, April 03, 2003 Objectivity By Diana Hsieh @ 8:39 AM Robert Campbell is generously attempting to mail out Objectivity Vol. 3 No. 1 published by Enlightenment, which is now defunct... but he has no subscriber list yet. So if you did subscribe, please drop him a note to robertlcampbell@earthlink.net. He'll send you your copy pronto. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, April 02, 2003 The Psychology of Authority By Diana Hsieh @ 8:25 AM The news coverage of the Elizabeth Smart case been completely overshadowed by the war. Nevertheless, the question of why she didn't attempt to escape (and even seemed to resist rescue) is an interesting one from a psychological perspective. The best explanation I've run across was posted on the Nathaniel Branden Forum by Mike Lee. He was kind enough to let me repost it. I don't have specific knowledge of the case, but I was raised Mormon, lived in Salt Lake City for several years, and I've known several of these Mormon fundamentalist/polygamist crazies--they're thick on the ground there. They frequently seek young teenage girls as wives, carrying on a tradition practiced from the time of Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon church in 1830. Smith used to get revelations commanding church members to hand over their teenage daughters to him for plural marriage. Elizabeth Smart isn't the first girl in Utah (even this year) to be told that God wants her to marry some old guy, and she's not the first to meekly (or eventually) accept her fate. This case is different because her family wasn't in on it, and complained loudly. The Smart family appear to be mainstream Mormons, who repudiate polygamy and consider the fundamentalists an extreme embarrassment to the faith. But Mormon girls are raised to be obedient to patriarchal authority, and I don't find it at all strange that Elizabeth would be easily subverted and subjugated, since she had already been conditioned to this very kind of obedience, and her kidnaper was using the same cues as those used on her in her normal environment (i.e., invocation of priesthood authority, scripture, etc.) The Smart family would be horrified and offended by my analysis, considering it anti-Mormon extremism. Yes, it's anti-Mormon, but I don't think it's extreme. The Smarts appear to be nice people, who admirably kept the pressure on to get their daughter back, held up well under extreme stress, and deserve applause. Their invocations of their faith and their religion as the reason they got her back are ironic, at best, since people familiar with Utah know that their daughter's abduction was religiously-motivated (or at least religiously-justified). The Mormon church, and the Smarts, as sensible Mormons, will try their best to keep a lid on the actual process whereby Elizabeth was pacified and did not try to escape. You'll hear a lot about the Stockholm Syndrome, and they'll try to keep details private. But, sure as hell, whatever brainwashing was done was steeped in Mormonism and a theology and authority that had her 90% brainwashed before she was taken. Very interesting! (Robert Cialdini's amazing book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion has a chapter on the influence exerted by genuine and fake authorities.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, April 01, 2003 Happy Birthday! By Diana Hsieh @ 9:57 PM Today is Paul's birthday! (No April Fool's jokes please. He's heard them all... and they aren't funny.) So go over to GeekPress and wish him another excellent year. For the record, Paul is a creaky old 41, while I am still a lithe young 28. I was thinking today that when I met Paul in 1994, I was merely 19... Of course, we didn't date until I asked him out over four years later, and then we were married six months after that. (We're coming up on our 4th year wedding anniversary in May.) I can't imagine life without him! Happy Birthday, Mr. Woo! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis More on the Law of Suicide Bombing By Diana Hsieh @ 9:29 PM A while back, I posted a question on whether the payment of the families of suicide bombers is a form of murder for hire. Former Arizona prosecutor and current judge Bill Perry was kind enough to send me a detailed reply. In response to his comments, I further asked whether "the family members of the suicide bombers who accept the cash payment for the murder (and who perhaps even encouraged the suicide bomber to commit murder) accomplices in any legal sense." Bill was once again kind enough to reply thusly: I know of no such prosecutions of family members for accepting cash, but I do know of statutes which could apply in Arizona, Federal courts, and perhaps some others. It involves a bit of nose holding for Objectivists and libertarians. This would be a violation of the money laundering statutes. Money laundering includes "...receiving... racketeering proceeds knowing or having reason to know they are the proceeds of an offense." Terrorism is defined as a racketeering offense. The money laundering in the first degree statute (which would be directed at the person directing the act and making the payment) specifically mentions terrorism in a subsection of the statutes. ARS Section 13-2317. Payment for doing drug deals has been included as a racketeering offense, and RICO civil forfeitures have been applied as well as criminal prosecutions. I see no reason this couldn't be applied in the terrorism context. The federal laws are similar to the Arizona laws (they were first). They could be applied to your example. There are a number of crimes that most Objectivists and libertarians would consider to be crimes that are included in racketeering--for example homicide, robbery kidnapping, forgery, theft and terrorism. Most of them are victimless crimes that we do not think should be crimes. ARS Section 13-2301 (4). In a better world the statutes could be modified to cover only those things that should be crimes. Indeed. 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