| Wednesday, September 29, 2004 | |
 |
Dan Rather's Mottos
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:21 PM   
Given their recent treatment of an e-mail hoax about the draft as fact, CBS News seems to be operating on the principle of "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." Given that the ink is not yet dry on the forged military documents Dan Rather staunchly defended as genuine, one might think that "Once bitten, twice shy" might be more appropriate.
Not to worry though, as "Every cloud has a silver lining." In this case, at least CBS News' viewership has dropped precipitously of late -- and that means that many fewer people heard about this latest absurdity.  E-mail Diana Hsieh
 PermaLink
 Comments (Popup)
 BloggerThis
|
|
The Most Delicious Sandwich Ever Made
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:56 PM
I just ate the most delicious sandwich ever made:
After two nights of inadequate sleep due to the hurried writing of a paper on Kant's theory of time, I'm happy to report that life is good again. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Divine Intervention in Sports
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:52 AM
As I was searching through my NoodleFood folder yesterday, I came across this tidbit from an old Salon article on the public prayers of athletes.
Athletes often have what might be considered a kindergartner's mentality about religion, treating God as a good-luck charm. "I think that very often athletes seem to have a very simplistic and self-serving view of what God is and does," sportscaster Bob Costas said in an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune. "It makes no sense that a God who, for all human understanding, can appear indifferent to major pain and suffering on a large scale or the illness of a child, would intercede to help get a first down." That quote from Bob Costas is just priceless. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Sunday, September 26, 2004 | |
|
Jungian Objectivism?!?
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:15 AM
Oh, lovely:Ayn Rand was a fervent advocate of liberty and individual rights; her celebration of free trade and mutual interaction stems from her first hand experience, and escape from, the very nightmares of which she wrote. She was a woman who dared to challenge the male dominated tradition of philosophy, and refused to back down from her ideals and fought for values. Her celebration of the ego, contrary to her critic's complaints of its adolescent appeal, is actually a necessary part of the individuation process. But her version of the hero myth does not include the individual's re-integration into the community that is a hallmark of the classical monomyth; instead, the hero maintains his separateness. And it is possible that Rand absorbed a hidden element of fascism from the literature of her adopted country, hidden even from the storytellers themselves. And although Rand's commitment to freedom can be demonstrated, there is a very strong risk that her work can be used against her. If Objectivists want to counter the claims of fascism, the paradoxes of Rand's ideas will have to be confronted. Here are a few bits of the detailed claim: (It is telling that Rand, the dialectic thinker, creates a dichotomy between the hero and the community.) Although Rand's heroes don't necessarily "ride off into the sunset," neither do they reintegrate themselves into the community. Kira is left lying dead in the snow in a failed attempt to escape, Roark rises above the city in a 'heavenly' ascent, and although Galt retreats to his Gulch, he plans to return to a world created in his image. There is enough similarity to make a connection, as many already have, (most notoriously the attack by Whittaker Chambers in the National Review's take on Atlas Shrugged) that Objectivism does display a hint of fascism. It may be, if the "medium is the message," and Jewett and Lawrence then are right, then, by choosing this subtle form of fascism, Rand may have inadvertently undercut her message of freedom and individuality. The author later speaks of "Rand's fascist-like emphasis of reason as an absolute" -- and attributes it to "her over-identification with the masculine at the expense of the so-called feminine qualities." The article as a whole is quite an amazing synthesis of the methods and claims of those false friends of Objectivism who undermine the philosophy while pretending to defend and advance it. Those wondering about the proper alternative ought to pick up a copy of Essays on Ayn Rand's We the Living. It's Objectivist scholarship as it might and ought to be -- and as it is amongst many ARI scholars. Update: Wowowow, now I wish that I'd presented some substantive argument, rather than merely mocking this article! Still, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics effectively persuaded yet another honest man. Check out the update posted on the index page of the web site: 9/25/05 I have decided to remove the contents of this site in light of the arguments regarding the biographies of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in James Valliant's book THE PASSION OF AYN RAND'S CRITICS. Though much of my content was based on the overlap of Jung's ideas in Rand's fiction, my attempts to reconcile Rand's alleged negative aspects (authoritarianism, dogmatism,etc.) with her stated beliefs through Jungian concepts of shadow projections and such were based on the claims of the Brandens. Even though I prefaced my thoughts with such qualifiers as "IF the Branden's or Rand's critics are correct," the truth is that I accepted their accusations on the basis of their relationship with Rand. After reading Valliant's book, I feel that without having firsthand knowledge of Ayn Rand's character, it was irresponsible for me to speculate as I did. Without blindly taking Valliant's side as gospel, I think it is only fair to acknowledge that without objective knowledge, that any criticisms of Rand based solely on the Brandens's account should be reconsidered. The author of the article -- and this update -- is Joe Maurone. Good work, Joe. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, September 23, 2004 | |
|
Torture
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:33 PM
Don Watkins has opened up an interesting discussion of torture on his blog. I'm not sure what to make of Arthur Silber's recollections of Ayn Rand's comments on torture, particularly in light of the conflict with the John Galt's action in the torture scene in Atlas Shrugged. In general, I'm doubtful that compliance with torture would eliminate it's use as a method of interrogation. More importantly, it necessitates placing the avoidance of pain at the top of a person's hierarchy of values, such that a person would have to be willing to risk the lives of everyone he loves in order to prevent a beating. Frankly, the key to eliminating torture seems to be to eliminate the torturers.
More broadly, the discussion seems to be in need of a definition of torture, at least so that people aren't talking past each other. Short-term sleep deprivation might be uncomfortable, but it doesn't compare to weeks of the same, let alone the deliberate infliction of horrible pain through beatings and the like. (Sometimes, I think that leftists regard any activity on the part of interrogators that tends to lead to confession as torture. That's obviously absurd. Merely inducing physical or psychological stress is not torture.) The essential feature of torture seems to be the deliberate infliction of substantial physical pain upon a victim. The purpose of torture may vary; it could be the twisted pleasure of the torturer or some compliance from the victim or the favor of the gods or whatnot. Although I'm not settled on the matter, I doubt that significant emotional suffering ought to count as torture. So if a man is forced to watch his wife being brutally raped, she is being tortured, while he is not -- even if he suffers more than she does as a result. I could be convinced otherwise, although I'd want to make sure that the concept would not lapse into subjectivism. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, September 22, 2004 | |
|
The State of ARI
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:22 AM
Some of you might be wondering whether Yaron Brook's "State of ARI" talk -- to be given this Friday in Denver -- is worth attending. So let me say that the answer is YES, YES, YES. I first heard the presentation at OCON in 2003. Of all that I saw at that conference, it left the deepest and most lasting impression upon me. Let me explain why.
As some of you may recall, I attended OCON in 2003 immediately after the TOC Summer Seminar. At the time, I was deeply unhappy with TOC, but also very skeptical of ARI. Yet the contrast I saw that summer between the state of TOC and the state of ARI was mind-boggling -- and intriguing. As for TOC, it was clear to me that the organization was floundering. Despite the absence of any serious commitment to or understanding of Objectivism among TOC students, students at every level were largely left to their own devices. In my ten years at IOS/TOC, no seminars, classes, or other formal programs teaching the principles and methods of Objectivism were offered. No suggested curriculum of sources and methods was disseminated for those undertaking the difficult task of learning the philosophy on their own. Thoroughly understanding Objectivism was never stressed or encouraged as necessary for good scholarship. Commentary on and criticism of papers from a hard-hitting Objectivist perspective was rare, even at the Advanced Seminar. Given the almost total lack of guidance offered to students by TOC, the fact that most adopted a casual approach toward the study of Objectivism is hardly surprising. In my own case, sliding into unseriousness was astonishingly easy at TOC, even once I began lecturing at the Summer Seminar. During that time, I largely coasted upon my background knowledge of the philosophy. Around the start of my graduate studies in late 2002, I realized that I was coasting -- and that my knowledge of the philosophy lacked the depth and breadth necessary for scholarly work. So I began an intensive solo study of the Objectivist corpus, a project in which I am still actively engaged. At the time, the fact that no one at TOC ever recommended such study to me, nor could offer any guidance or help in the process, was astonishing, frustrating, and mystifying. In addition, TOC had accomplished nothing of note since the great fanfare of their 1999 change of name and mission. They had published no new books, rarely appeared in the media, and circulated few op-eds. The much-touted Atlas Society flopped, surely at considerable expense. The years-past John Stossel "Greed" special was one of the few concrete accomplishments cited in fundraising letters. The much-hailed chief operating officer brought in to help TOC onto the right path left after only six months. As of the summer of 2003, the only substantial activities of the Center were the Advanced Seminar, the Summer Seminar, and Navigator. Unsurprisingly, no general presentation about TOC was offered at the 2003 Summer Seminar. They could not have withstood the open airing of harsh questions and frustrated grievances from donors. At the Sponsor's dinner, David Kelley did speak of TOC's financial crunch, their great need for money from the sponsors, and the tangible output of many years past. He answered no questions. Nor could the sponsors even speak amongst themselves about the issues raised, as we were immediately packed onto the bus for the ride back to our rooms. Notably, raising my concerns with David Kelley only increased my frustrations and fears. In December of 2002, he completely ruled out the possibility of ever working with graduate students in any kind of mentoring relationship, as is standard in graduate school with analytic professors. He seemed baffled by my suggestion that students might need assistance and encouragement in learning the philosophy. At that 2003 Summer Seminar, he bristled at my comment that even if mentoring was impossible, his writing on scholarly issues in Objectivism once again would be enormously helpful to developing scholars. He was quite upset by the "disloyalty" of my small public criticism of TOC, claiming that my speaking at the Summer Seminar was conditional upon exhibiting proper "institutional loyalty." He showed no concern whatsoever when I told him that I was considering leaving TOC, even though I had been one of the most involved and productive students in recent years. His primary concern seemed to be that I keep quiet about my unhappiness with TOC, even amongst my friends at the seminar. Clearly, I had reached a dead end -- and was tired of banging my head against the wall. So as of the summer of 2003, I knew that TOC was failing miserably. I didn't yet know whether the problem was David Kelley's abysmal management, the underlying philosophy of the organization, or both. With that background in mind, I headed to ARI's summer conference, OCON. Perhaps more than anything else at the conference, Yaron Brook's "The State of ARI" presentation made me rethink my generally negative view of ARI. It was clear to me that ARI had done more in a single year than TOC did in ten. Multiple books were in the process of being written by ARI scholars, in substantial part due to the grants from the Anthem Foundation. Students were offered systematic training in the principles and methods of Objectivism in the Academic Center. Op-eds were frequently published and media appearances were common. Their plan to get Ayn Rand's fiction more widely read by high school students was brilliant on so many levels. In my years at TOC, I simply accepted the idea that academic programs must compete with cultural activism programs for time and resources. In sharp contrast, Yaron Brook presented a single vision for changing the culture which integrated their high school book programs and essay contests, undergraduate and graduate education, book grants and fellowships for professors, op-ed programs, media appearances, and business training. With such a single, integrated vision, priority of programs could be determined objectively on the basis of the necessary order for success in the basic goal, rather than haphazardly or on the basis of the demands of big donors. It was quite a lesson in what is possible to an Objectivist organization when it knows what it's doing and does it well. At the time, my basic thought was that the moral is the practical -- and thus I began to search for the deeper roots of ARI's success and TOC's failure. That led me to re-read the primary documents of the split and ultimately to disassociate myself from TOC. For that and so much more, I owe Yaron Brook a deep debt of gratitude. Although it might sound melodramatic, Yaron Brook's presentation on "The State of ARI" changed my life. And that's why I can't recommend it highly enough. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Yaron Brook in Denver
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:19 AM
From Lin Zinser of Front Range Objectivist Supper Talks (FROST):
On Thursday, September 23, 2004, Yaron Brook, President and Executive Director of Ayn Rand Institute will present a talk on "The Morality of War", at the Boulder Campus of the University of Colorado. At 7:30 P.M. This talk will exxplain why Washington is fighting the war in the manner it is, and why that effort is doomed to fail. Moreover, you will also learn how the war should be fought, how it can be won, and see a solution that is both practical and reasonable. This event is co-sponsored by the Boulder Campus Objectivist Club. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Tuesday, September 21, 2004 | |
|
Colorado Weather
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:12 PM
When I arrived home from Boulder yesterday afternoon, my plants were wilting and parched due to excessive sun and wind. But when I fed the horses this morning, my mare was shivering cold from the chilly rain. Tonight, we might even get snow.
Ah, the delights of Colorado weather! E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
Academic Plagiarism or Academic Bureaucracy?
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:34 AM
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Juan Non-Volokh posted some comments on a rather strange case of plagiarism by a Harvard law professor. A passage from a book by Yale law professor Jack Balkin was printed in a book by Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree as if it were his own. Juan quotes a bit of the Harvard Crimson article which explains how that happened:
Ogletree told The Crimson that he had not read the passage of Balkin's book that appears in his own work. An assistant inserted the material into a manuscript and intended for another assistant to summarize the passage, according to Ogletree's statement. The first assistant inadvertently dropped the end quote, and the second assistant accidentally deleted the attribution to Balkin before sending a draft to the publisher. As Juan notes, that means "Professor Ogletree did plan to publish the work of others -- in this case, his student research assistants -- under his own name." Juan opines: Of course it is common for prominent figures to use ghostwriters in preparing manuscripts, and many authors include material prepared by -- and perhaps even drafted by -- research assistants and others. In this Professor Ogletree would hardly be alone. But is this the appropriate standard of scholarship for a tenured law professor? At Harvard? Perhaps I have an old fashioned perspective on these sorts of things, but I am disturbed by the idea of tenured professors at prestigious institutions using research assistants to draft portions of their scholarly work. It this a reasonable view? Or do I have an outmoted view of legal scholarship? After all, attorneys regularly sign documents draftd by others, so why shouldn't law professors do the same? I think that Juan is quite right to be disturbed. And the semi-justification offered by one of his readers, Fabio Rojas, quoted in this post, offers no comfort: During grad school, I discovered there were two modes of "legitimate" academic work: craftsman and bureaucrat. The craftsman worked alone, or with one or two colleagues, to carefully write papers and books. This is the "classic" scholar approach. When you think of a philosopher mulling over every turn of phrase or a historian carefully citing ancience documents, you are thinking "craftsman." All of that is well and good: Some academic projects require the help of a small army of research assistants and assistant writers, while others are best done solo. Some professors excel as bureaucrats, while others are better suited for the role of the craftsman. Yet the question remains: Should professors present the work of their students as their own? Surely not. Students who write portions of a text richly deserve the credit of co-authorship. Students who substantially contribute to the research behind a text deserve at least a footnote or two of credit. Part of the job of a professor is to help along the careers of his students. To take credit for their work subverts that purpose, as the open recognition of work done through co-authorship adds substantial weight to a CV. Such attribution is also directly in the interest of the professor. Students will likely be more careful with a text (such as in proper attribution of sources) if their own name is on the line. And the blame for mistakes can be more easily spread to the culpable party if co-authors are openly acknowledged. In academic medicine, co-authorship of articles is standard when attending physicians and residents collaborate -- which is why articles in medical journals often have three, four, or five authors. Less substantial contributions are also appropriately noted in footnotes. As far as I understand, such acknowledgement of the contributions of graduate students is also fairly standard in collaborative works in sociology, psychology, economics, and the like. If academic lawyers are going to be bureaucrats rather than craftsmen, then they need to honestly acknowledge that by giving due credit to those under their management. The fact that court decisions are often substantially written by law clerks and that books by politicians are often ghostwritten by professional writers not relevant. That is work-for-hire, which is a whole different animal. Without a work-for-hire agreement, no professor should (either in a legal or moral sense) take credit for the work of his students. More importantly, no reputable academic institution ought to allow professor to make use of work-for-hire. What is forbidden to students as plagiarism -- buying work to pass off as one's own -- ought to be forbidden to professors. In the context of academia, I can't think of enough unpleasant words for such a practice, although dishonest, unprofessional, hypocritical, and abusive come to mind. Professors can be bureaucrats without being plagiarists -- and their colleagues ought to insist upon it. Labels: Academia E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Monday, September 20, 2004 | |
|
Saddam: Big Fat Liar
By Diana Hsieh @ 4:35 PM
As if murdering thousands of people was not enough, Saddam is now justifying his regime on the grounds that it was "working in the public interest and did not mean any harm."
Deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is depressed and has begged the Iraqi government for mercy, Iraq's Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said in an interview published Monday. Let's hope that Allawi realizes that the banality of evil neither new nor a reason for mercy. In any case, I suspect that Saddam will have a hard time proving that he was "working in the public interest and did not mean any harm" in any court of law. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
It's About Time!
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:07 PM
Well, this apology is long overdue. Without a doubt, Dan Rather deserves to be fired -- but such "drastic" measures seem unlikely.
Some people have faulted the blogosphere for focusing so much on this story over the past week and some. Given the magnitude of the offense -- and the great danger of partisan misinformation posing as news -- I'm glad that bloggers kept up the heat. In the long run, keeping our newsmen at least somewhat honest is more important than the details of the present election. In other news, I learned today that wearing black jeans while teaching is a very bad idea. After teaching my early morning pair of back-to-back recitations, it looked like I had lost a rather serious dispute with my chalk. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Sunday, September 19, 2004 | |
|
Tenure and Bias
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:05 PM
The idea that tenure protects academic freedom is a joke. Those with unwanted opinions (i.e. non-leftists) can be easily weeded out of academia long before the protections of tenure are ever applied. So I was pleased to read this op-ed by a former Middlebury College president arguing against the tenure system. Dr. McCardell writes:
To faculties and governing boards: tenure is a great solution to the problems of the 1940's, when the faculty was mostly male and academic freedom was at genuine risk. Why must institutions make a judgment that has lifetime consequences after a mere six or seven years? Publication may take longer in some fields than in others, and familial obligations frequently interrupt careers. Why not a system of contracts of varying length, including lifetime for the most valuable colleagues, that acknowledges the realities of academic life in the 21st century? I certainly agree with McCardell that the greater flexibility afforded by a contract system would be good for all concerned, I wholly disagree with his presumption that academic freedom is alive and well at our universities. The problem with tenure is not that academic freedom is wholly secure, but rather that the protection afforded by tenure is "too little, too late." Just yesterday in the grad lounge, I walked in on a spirited conversation making great fun of all those ignorant and stupid conservative students, particularly those who claim discrimination by professors and instructors. After listening a while, I noted that the present conversation surely proves that conservatives have no reason to complain or worry about discrimination against them. At least some of my fellow graduate students understood the irony. If I were a less cantankerous or more sensitive person, I would find the hard leftism at Boulder's philosophy department completely overwhelming and intolerable. Instead, I've learned to take a sort of pleasure in occasionally needling my fellow graduate students with my primitive and backwards ideas. All considered, that's probably not a very healthy attitude to adopt, but I doubt that I could endure graduate school any other way. And speaking of graduate school, I have reading to do! Labels: Academia E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
An Inadequate Hero
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:27 AM
Last night, Paul and I committed a grave error: We spent our valuable time, not to mention a few bucks, viewing Hero. At the time, it seemed like a good choice, as we knew that it was a Jet Li martial arts film which received rave reviews on IMDB. In fact, it was worse than a waste of time.
The pure visual aesthetics of the movie were often astonishingly lovely -- but that was the only redeeming quality of the movie. The basic plot, including the fight scenes, was repetitive, boring, and meaningless. The characters were wholly unmotivated, particularly in the "true" version of events. The pernicious mysticism, collectivism, and altruism advocated were not even granted the dignity of a clear or coherent presentation. Honestly, I would have spent a more delightful 90 minutes if I had stayed home to read next week's assignment from Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or Tom Regan's The Case for Animal Rights. The evening was not a total waste, however, I did read Noumenal Self's four-part commentary on why he's inclined to vote for Kerry. Although I have minor concerns about his analysis at various points, I find myself far more persuaded by his arguments than I ever would have expected. Still, the thought of voting for Kerry just turns my stomach. Oy. I suppose that I'm one of those "swing voters" now. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Friday, September 17, 2004 | |
|
Intrinsicism at Work
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:42 AM
This exchange between Eugene Volokh and one of his readers culminates in perhaps the most perfect statement of methodological intrinsicism that I've ever seen.
The reader originally said: Homosexuality is debasing to all who take part in that perversion. The finer sensibilities that distinguish humans from animals, these are partly benumbed by this debasing act. All society suffers proportionately. Eugene replied in part: You make assertion after assertion, but you give no support for them. Why is it exactly that I suffer because two friends of mine decide to have sex in a particular way in the privacy of their own home? Why does it even debase them? Why does it erode the finer sensibilities that distinguish humans from animals? Again, you just say these things — why should I believe them? The reader revealed himself: The fact that you cannot determine that sexual perversions such as sodomy are debasing is in itself evidence that you are unable to determine what the truth is at this time. When you begin to search for truth with the aim to live the truth, you will find it. Eugene then rightly makes good fun of this reader, but only for the last line. In fact, I think that the italicized paragraph is far more revealing. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
9/11 Debate: Terrorism, Islam, and Cultural Relativism
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:11 AM
The short essay that follows was my "opening statement" in the not-really-debate between all five T.A.s in Robert Hanna's "Introduction to Ethics" class presented yesterday. After the statements were read, the floor was opened up to the students for questions, comments, and the like. To my surprise, I received a few questions of clarification but few objections from those students. (The TAs didn't directly respond to each other's arguments.) The students are now charged with the assignment of writing up short "critical response papers" on the subject. (I've omitted the footnotes, but my only real source was Daniel Pipes' Militant Islam Reaches America.)
Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush formulated what came to be known as the "Bush Doctrine." He claimed (1) that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them" and (2) that "every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." As a pre-emptive, nation-building war contrary to the wishes of some traditional allies, the war in Iraq raised considerable opposition at home and abroad. Yet Bush pressed forward, seemingly impervious to the objections of his critics. He seems to have talked tough and acted tougher -- perhaps like the "American cowboy" sometimes charged. Meanwhile, Iraq seems to spiraling downward into a morass of civil unrest and deadly terrorism. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, September 16, 2004 | |
|
My Schedule Today
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:59 PM
6:50 am: Wake up
7:00 am - 9:00 am: Finish writing up my TA debate presentation on 9/11 9:00 am - 9:30 am: Frantically shower and feed the ravenously hungry beasts 9:30 am - 10:30 am : Drive from Sedalia to Boulder, also listening to the Teaching Company course The Great Ideas of Psychology 11:00 am - 11:50 am: TA debate on 9/11 in the Intro to Ethics course 12:30 pm - 4:45 pm: Attend Ethics and Animals, Kant, and Locke classes 6:00 pm - 7:15 pm: Dinner and conversation with fellow Objectivists, first with pain from a migraine, then a slightly-out-of-body feeling from too much Excedrin 7:30 pm - 9:00 pm: Lead informal discussion on "The Objectivist Ethics" for the Boulder Objectivists Club meeting 9:15 pm - 10:30 pm: Drive from Boulder to Sedalia, also talking to Paul on the phone a bit, listening to the Teaching Company course The Great Ideas of Psychology, and stopping for milk 11:00 pm - 11:55 pm: Row five miles on rowing machine 11:55 am - 12:05 am: Write up this blog post, with way too many edits, including this silly line 12:15 am: Go to bed Wow. Nighty-night, folks! Update: Unsurprisingly, I feel like complete and utter crap this morning (next day, 9/17). E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, September 15, 2004 | |
|
The Total Lack of Religious Freedom in Saudi Arabia Finally of Concern to the State Department
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:25 AM
News flash from the State Department about Saudi Arabia: "The [Saudi] Government does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice." Wow, who knew?!? More particularly, the latest International Religious Freedom Report says this about Saudi Arabia:
Freedom of religion does not exist. It is not recognized or protected under the country's laws, and basic religious freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam. Citizens are denied the freedom to choose or change their religion, and noncitizens practice their beliefs under severe restrictions. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. The Government limits the practice of all but the officially sanctioned version of Islam and prohibits the public practice of other religions. During the period covered by this report, the Government publicly restated its policy that non-Muslims are free to practice their religions at home and in private. While the Government does not always respect this right in practice, many non-Muslims engage in private worship without harassment. As custodian of Islam's two holiest sites in Mecca and Medina, the Government considers its legitimacy to rest largely on its interpretation and enforcement of Shari'a. Consequently, the Government has declared the Koran and the Sunna (tradition) of Muhammad to be the country's Constitution. The Government follows the rigorously conservative and strict interpretation of the Salafi (often referred to as "Wahhabi") school of the Sunni branch of Islam and discriminates against other branches of Islam. Neither the Government nor society in general accepts the concept of separation of religion and state. Actually, that's nothing new. The State Department has made similar claims in prior versions of the International Religious Freedom Report for years. The news flash is that Saudi Arabia is now listed as a "Country of Particular Concern" for "particularly severe violations of religious freedom" for the first time. Since nothing has changed in Saudi Arabia, I wonder what changed in the State Department. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
|
The Return of the Gulag
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:53 AM
In his excellent book Russia Under the Old Regime, Richard Pipes persuasively argues that Russia's embrace of communism was not a break with the past, but rather merely a variation upon the autocratic and patrimonial state that dominated Russia for all its centuries. In light of that repressive history, I'm not surprised that Putin is seeking to return Russia to autocratic government. Nor will I be surprised when he succeeds.
President Vladimir Putin announced plans Monday for a "radically restructured" political system that would bolster his power by ending the popular election of governors and independent lawmakers, moves he portrayed as a response to this month's deadly seizure of a Russian school. As a general rule, any country in which the communists are the only opponents of some scheme to grab political power is utterly doomed. The article even notes that terrorism isn't even an operative pretext since "in his public remarks, Putin offered little explanation for how the changes would defeat terrorism of the sort that visited Beslan earlier this month." Predictably, the Bush Administration has remained largely silent on the matter. A Washington Post editorial (found via Don Watkins)get it right: Like a number of dictators around the world, Mr. Putin is learning that Mr. Bush's passion for delivering speeches about freedom doesn't mean he is willing to defend it in practice. Were he to do so, he would begin by issuing a statement as clear as that delivered yesterday by Democrat John F. Kerry. Mr. Kerry began by vowing to "work constructively with Russia" against terrorism, and then added: "I remain deeply concerned about President Putin's ongoing moves to limit democratic freedoms and further centralize power. Russia will be a much more effective partner in the war on terror if its government is transparent, open to criticism, respectful of the rule of law and protects the human rights of its citizens, including those in Chechnya. Simply looking the other way -- as the Bush administration has done -- is not in the national security interest of the United States or Russia." Of course, I think that an even stronger statement is warranted, but at least Kerry spoke out. Moral pressure often has more impact than tolerationist appeasers of the left think -- as the history of the Soviet Union demonstrates. For all of its talk, the Bush Administration cares little about genuine freedom. And an autocratic Russia, given its arsenal of nuclear weapons, is a grave threat to the security of the United States. Frankly, I wonder how long Russians will have to wait for the return of the Gulag. Given that the vast majority of Russians seem content to allow their few short years of relative freedom slip back into autocracy, I cannot lament their likely future, as they are complicit in it. I do grieve for those few pro-Western Russians who understand what is at stake and who are fighting a desperate and losing battle for freedom in their country. They will be the first causalities. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Tuesday, September 14, 2004 | |
|
Strange Quote
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:19 PM
Wow, this is odd:
A thought for the day: Russian-born American novelist and screenwriter Ayn Rand said, "Disunity, that's the trouble. It's my absolute opinion that in our complex industrial society, no business enterprise can succeed without sharing the burden of the problem with other enterprises." Uh, I don't think that Ayn Rand ever said that. Update: Paul just suggested that the quote might come from one of the villians of Atlas Shrugged. That would be entertaining. (I could check the CD-ROM, but I'm too lazy.) E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Sunday, September 12, 2004 | |
|
Moose and Elk
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:03 PM
Well, I'm back home again. I spent all of last week camping in the Rocky Mountains with my parents. We saw tons of wildlife, including both elk and moose up close and personal. See for yourself:
 
Those large beasts were only about 20 to 30 feet away when I took the pictures. The (female) moose seemed quite placid, but I was a bit more worried about the (male) elk strutting about, seemingly looking for some action. Around our first camp site in the Rocky Mountain National Park, the elk mating season was in full swing. We could hear the squeaky bellowing of the male elk day and night from the valley below. I wasn't too far from Boulder, so I was able to commute into school for classes on Tuesday and Thursday. (Normally I also teach two recitation sections on Monday, but Labor Day intervened this week.) Paul was able to join us for the first part of the week, but then he had to head to Atlanta for a medical conference. I'm eagerly awaiting his arrival home tonight. It was a fabulous time. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Monday, September 06, 2004 | |
|
Just a Warning
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:10 AM
My internet access is going to be fairly sporadic over the next week, so don't expect any prompt replies to e-mail or much blogging. In fact, the boatload of e-mail in my inbox is likely to only grow in the next week.
Oh, and another professor is leaving Boulder. This time it's Alan Carter, my environmental philosophy professor from last semester. (To my surprise, I did enjoy the class.) I've now lost track of how many holes we have in the department; I think that it's something like 10 in a 23-person department or somesuch. And we've had more than 5 people leave just in the past year. Oy. Unforunately, given Paul's work, it's not feasible for me to go elsewhere. So I need to stick it out at Boulder, go who may. E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
|
| Goodies |
NoodleFoodlers
Guest NoodleFoodlers
Blog Stuff
Recent Comments
RSS Feed by E-Mail
Ask a Question
Blogger Trackbacks
Technorati Trackbacks
Blogger Trackbacks
NoodleFood RSS Feed
Reader Map
Ayn Rand Lexicon
Ayn Rand Society
Activism
The Objective Standard
The Undercurrent
Individual Rights in Medicine)
Family
Blogroll
Archives
