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

Saturday, November 27, 2004 "Telling the Fallujah Story to the World" By Paul @ 12:01 AM This astounding PowerPoint presentation created by the US 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and the MultiNational Corps-Iraq details the despicable nature of the enemy that we've been fighting in Fallujah. I'm so glad we finally finished the job we started (and should have completed) 8 months ago. (Link via DefenseTech.) E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, November 23, 2004 "Seeing is believing (in the free market)" By Paul @ 8:02 PM Alex Tabarrok has some very interesting observations about health care economics: Everywhere we look it seems that health care is more expensive: prescription drug prices are increasing, costs to visit the doctor are up, the price of health insurance is rising. But look closer, even closer, closer still. Don't see it yet? Perhaps you should have your eyes corrected at a Lasik vision center. Laser eye surgery has the highest patient satisfaction ratings of any surgery, it has been performed more than 3 million times in the past decade, it is new, it is high-tech, it has gotten better over time and... laser eye surgery has fallen in price. In 1998 the average price of laser eye surgery was about $2200 per eye. Today the average price is $1350, that's a decline of 38 percent in nominal terms and slightly more than that after taking into account inflation. Why the price decline in this market and not others? Could it have something to do with the fact that laser eye surgery is not covered by insurance, not covered by Medicaid or Medicare, and not heavily regulated? Laser eye surgery is one of the few health procedures sold in a free market with price advertising, competition and consumer driven purchases. I'm seeing things more clearly already. (From Marginal Revolution.) E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, November 21, 2004 Shameless Political Book Plug By Paul @ 9:38 AM Bill Whittle, one of my favorite internet essayists, has a new book out entitled, Silent America: Essays From a Democracy at War. It's a hard copy edition of some of his best essays, available for for only $29.95 plus S&H. Perfect for Christmas! If you want to read the online versions, here are the links to the individual chapters: Honor Freedom Empire War Courage Confidence History Victory Magic Trinity (Part 1) Trinity (Part 2) Responsibility Power Strength (Part 1) Strength (Part 2) Deterrence (Part 1) Deterrence (Part 2) Whittle is not an Objectivist, and I don't agree with everything he says. But I find his writing thought-provoking and inspiring, both for the actual content of his arguments as well as the underlying optimistic American sense of life. As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I especially liked "Freedom". For a fun discussion of capitalism in America, read "Trinity". For an essentialized analysis of our great political divide, read "Responsibility". And for some good counterweights to the conventional wisdom promulgated by the mainstream press on America's role in the world (in general) and the Iraq War (in particular), read "Empire", "War","Strength" and "Deterrence". E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, November 19, 2004 The New Rankings By Diana Hsieh @ 8:02 AM The new rankings of philosophy graduate programs are out. Due to all of our departures of faculty over the last year and some, Boulder has dropped from #28 to #38. (We're actually now tied with my undergraduate alma mater, WashU, which had fallen entirely off the rankings in recent years. I'm glad that WashU seems to be rebuilding its program.) Although the present fall in rank aggravating, I'm not too worried it. Bob Pasnau (our department chairman) has been very busy hiring good new faculty. So I expect that we'll see a substantial rise in our ranking the next time around. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, November 18, 2004 I Couldn't Make This Stuff Up Even If Tried Really, Really Hard By Diana Hsieh @ 11:22 PM Really, how do people come up with this idiocy? Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand give so much prominence to the will that there was little left over for reason. Historians have referred to this triad as "irrational vitalists." That's from Donald DeMarco, the Catholic philosopher who "co-authored a book investigating the dysfunctional lives and theories of the Architects of the Culture of Death with Benjamin Wiker." The interview with DeMarco is introduced with this bit of loveliness: Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Ayn Rand and Wilhelm Reich may have had therapeutic aims to cure the world of its ills. But instead they contributed immensely to the modern sickness that John Paul II has identified as the "culture of death." As the title says, I couldn't make this stuff up even if tried really, really hard. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Kant in the News By Diana Hsieh @ 4:50 PM When I heard that Dinesh D'Sousa had written a very Kantian op-ed for Opinion Journal from some Objectivist sources, I figured that the article merely had a Kantian flavor to it. Boy, was I ever wrong. The whole article is an explicit appeal to Kant's tortured metaphysics and epistemology, all for the small task of rejecting Daniel Dennett's stupid suggestion that atheistic materialists identify themselves as "brights." I would quote from the article for the purposes of illustration, but then I'd have to quote it all. So go read it if you want the gory details. Far more amusing was British Home Secretary David Blunkett blaming Kant for the public's skepticism about national identity cards. (Paul found it in the course of surfing for stories for GeekPress.) Home Secretary David Blunkett said today that the German philosopher Immanuel Kant is to blame for scepticism about the government's plans for a compulsory national identity card. He was speaking at a meeting at the Institute of Public Policy Research, restating his arguments in favour of the scheme. The British public's fear of ID cards is down to our "history of legitimate doubts about the intentions of the state, reinforced by what we saw in terms of communism and fascism over the last century", Blunkett said. "It was writers like Kant who first took the view that there is something suspicious about government activity, and that if a government is up to something, it must be about removing freedoms." Nothing could be further from the truth, he argues. In fact, the ID card will pave the way for a more tolerant society, with greater social cohesion. It will be useful in the fight against racism, and won't be a big-brother style surveillance tool, at all. It is now time to take on the sceptics, and those who argue that the government's intentions cannot be taken at face value, he says. Trust us. We're nice. If only Kant were such a good influence on public policy! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, November 15, 2004 Confused Reporting By Diana Hsieh @ 9:38 PM Okay, so either a reporter was very confused or Jimmy has some 'splaining to do: Blog owners usually don't allow their readers to add their own comments, preferring their monologues to others' dialogues. On the other hand, a "Wiki," which gets its name from the Hawaiian word for "fast," is a type of Web site that encourages active participation. It's the approach taken by Wikipedia, the most pervasive quasi-encyclopedia on the Web. Wikipedia is free and contains millions of articles in scores of languages that pop up early in many Google searches, but the articles' authors are anonymous and can be anyone, so their credibility is dubious. A computer programmer from Alabama named Jimmy Wales created Wikipedia in 2001, inviting Web surfers to add articles on any topic, and they did, with 1 million articles being added as of last September. Wales admires novelist Ayn Rand's Objectivist Philosophy, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as a doctrine "holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events." So he believes that contributors should "write about what people believe, rather than what is so." Instead of gathering a stable of acknowledged authorities to write its articles, as do traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia describes itself as "collaboratively edited and maintained by thousands of users." The italicized passage is quite astonishing. Even bypassing the misunderstanding of Objectivism, the only connection between reality as objective and writing on beliefs rather than facts is a negative one! So Jimmy, what's up with that?!? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, November 14, 2004 Democratic Disorganization By Diana Hsieh @ 8:56 AM Brian Leiter posts a first-hand report on the abysmal lack of organization among the Democrats in Ohio from a lawyer. The systematic and unrelenting incompetence is truly mind-boggling. Too often, good managers are not properly appreciated for the critical role they play in the effective and efficient mobilization of human capital. The story linked above merely shows the other side of the coin, i.e. the utter waste and stupidity of poorly organized mass of people. The enthusiasm, skills, and drive of such people are utterly without value in the absence of a structure to purposefully direct those qualities toward the desired goal. But given that the goal in this case was to elect John Kerry, perhaps we should be grateful. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, November 13, 2004 The Incredibles By Diana Hsieh @ 9:16 AM In more chipper news than that on Arafat just below, Paul and I saw The Incredibles last night. It was truly delightful, particularly since it wholly lacked the stench of altruism so often found in tales of comic book heroes. And speaking of comic book heroes, I have been nothing but disappointed in the new Batman animated series, The Batman. This young Batman is too casual, too light, too gregarious to be Batman. It's quite a travesty. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis More Good Riddance By Diana Hsieh @ 9:16 AM A Washington Post article on the death of Arafat opens with this revolting celebration of the bloody terrorist: For virtually his entire adult life, Yasser Arafat had one dream, and he pursued it with such energy and zeal -- some would say fanaticism -- that he came to personify the dream itself. The dream was of self-determination and statehood for the Palestinian people, and in the end he did not live to see it. As Mort Kondrake observed on Special Report with Brit Hume two nights ago: "Gerhard Schroeder said that 'It was not granted to Yasser Arafat to complete his life's work.' To that I say 'Thank God' because Yasser Arafat's life's work was the destruction of the state of Israel." That's all too true -- and the only possible explanation for Arafat's rejection of multiple opportunities to create a Palestinian state in favor of continued terrorism against innocent Israelis. (A short video on Arafat's legacy can be found here, thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy.) In the comments, David Beatty wrote that "It remains to be seen if the Palestinians are really interested in peace or just eliminating Israel." In the past few years, I have not seen a single shred of evidence that any substantial minority of Palestinians are genuinely interested in peaceful co-existence with Israel. Instead, the evidence is overwhelming that most Palestinians either actively or passively support the destruction of Israel. Perhaps some Palestinians would be willing to speak out if so-called collaborators weren't strung up in the streets by Arafat's thugs. But I'm not exactly hopeful. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, November 12, 2004 A Public Service Announcement By Diana Hsieh @ 11:36 AM Sometimes, I post "public service announcements" of information that I think will be helpful to my readers. (Why? Because I care about your well-being!) For those of you who don't read GeekPress, I wanted to make sure that you were aware of the top 10 reasons why sex at the speed of light is not an advisable form of procreation before any attempt to join the 299,792,458 Meters per Second Club. I know that sex at the speed of light is a big fad these days, particularly among young people. Astonishingly, most don't even regard it as a genuine form of sex at all! But just remember folks, it's not without substantial risks. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Food for Foreign Policy Thought By Diana Hsieh @ 8:28 AM A few weeks ago, Paul presented a short case in favor of voting for Bush to our local Objectivist discussion group, FROG. He gathered an interesting collection of quotes into a handout, which I have reproduced below. Given that that the election has already passed, you may safely assume that the commentaries below are not narrowly focused on the election, but rather concern the wider issues of voting, foreign policy, religion in America, and so on. (However, you make not safely assume that I agree with all that is below.) "How to Judge a Political Candidate," Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Newsletter, March 1964 In view of the general confusion on this subject, it is advisable to remind prospective voters of a few basic considerations, as guidelines in deciding what one can properly expect of a political candidate, particularly of a presidential candidate. One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate's total philosophy -- only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials). It is not a Philosopher-King that we are electing, but an executive for a specific, delimited job. It is only political consistency that we can demand of him; if he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours. A contradiction of that kind, will, of course, hamper the effectiveness of his campaign, weaken his arguments and dilute his appeal -- as any contradictions undercut any man's efficacy. But we have to judge him as we judge any work, theory, or product of mixed premises: by his dominant trend. A vote for any candidate does not constitute an endorsement of his entire position, not even of his entire political position, only of his basic political principles... It is the basic -- and, today, the only -- issue by which a candidate must be judged: freedom vs. statism. If a candidate evades, equivocates and hides his stand under a junk-heap of random concretes, we must add up those concretes and judge him accordingly. If his stand is mixed, we must evaluate it by asking: Will he protect freedom or destroy the last of it? Will he accelerate, delay, or stop the march towards statism? Special Providence, Walter Russell Mead, 1999 Americans through the centuries seem to have had four basic ways of looking at foreign policy, which have reflected contrasting and sometimes complementary ways of looking at domestic policy as well. Hamiltonians regard a strong alliance between the national government and big business as the key to both domestic stability and to effective action abroad, and they have long focused on the nation's need to be integrated into the global economy on favorable terms. Wilsonians believe that the United States has both a moral obligation and an important national interest in spreading American democratic and social values throughout the world creating a peaceful international community that accepts the rule of law. Jeffersonians hold that American foreign policy should be less concerned about spreading democracy abroad than about safeguarding it at home; they have historically been skeptical about the Hamiltonian and Wilsonian policies that involve the United States with unsavory allies abroad or that increase the risks of war. Finally, a large populist school I call Jacksonian believes that the most important goal of the U.S. government in both foreign and domestic policy should be the physical security and the economic well-being for the American people. "Conversation with Walter Russell Mead: Four Themes in US Foreign Policy," 2003 And Jacksonians, when it comes to war, don't believe in limited wars. They don't believe, particularly, in the laws of war. War is about fighting, killing, and winning with as few casualties as possible on your side. But you don't worry about casualties on the other side. That's their problem. They shouldn't have started the war if they didn't want casualties. ... The idea is: Don't bother with people abroad, unless they bother you. But if they attack you, then do everything you can. "Jacksonian Foreign Policy," Steven DenBeste, 8/11/2002 The whole point of Jacksonianism is "You leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. You play fair with me and I'll play fair with you. But if you fuck with me, I'll kill you." "The Jacksonian Tradition and the War in Iraq," John Moser, May 2004 And then there are the Jacksonians. Unlike the other three, they are not likely to hold important positions in the media, the business community, academia, or the foreign policy establishment. However, they do make up a substantial part of the working-class and middle-class population, and they are well represented in Congress and in the military... tracing its ancestry back to the Scots-Irish clansmen who settled along the American frontier. Its members embrace a code based on self-reliance, equality, and individualism... Jacksonians, according to Mead, are not automatic supporters of intervention abroad. In the 1990s the Clinton administration's efforts in Somali and Eastern Europe, having little to do with tangible American interests, left them cold. However, once they are convinced that war is justified on grounds of national interest or national honor, their sole concern is achieving victory at the lowest cost to American forces. They have little patience for diplomacy, and none whatsoever for the notion of limited war. They find it difficult to understand why humanitarian concern for the enemy should be allowed to trump the lives of US soldiers and other personnel. The fiercest Jacksonian outrage is reserved for enemies who are deemed to be dishonorable -- that is, those who fight contrary to the recognized rules of war. Ordinary opponents, who honor longstanding traditions such as the flag of truce, and who treat prisoners humanely, are entitled to be treated in the same fashion. On the other hand, terrorists who target women and children, kidnap and execute journalists and other civilians, and commit similar atrocities deserve whatever they get. The Geneva Convention, they believe, exists to protect civilization, not the barbarians who seek to bring it down. Moreover, Jacksonians are less willing to draw sharp distinctions between actual enemy combatants and other members of the enemy nation, particularly when opponents eschew traditional uniforms, and insist on ensconcing themselves in mosques, hospitals, and other non-military buildings. According to Mead, this stems from the experience of frontier warfare: "It was not enough to defeat a tribe in battle; one had to pacify the tribe, to convince it utterly and totally that resistance was and always would be futile and destructive." Only by carrying the war to the civilian population could future wars be avoided... It is precisely this attitude that many non-Jacksonians find frightening. Yet Mead, far from denouncing it, believes that it is no less important to the American "style" of foreign policy than is Hamiltonianism, Jeffersonianism, and Wilsonianism. Simply put, "every American school needs Jacksonians to get what it wants." "The Jacksonian Tradition," The National Interest, No. 58, Winter 1999/2000, Walter Russell Mead For the first Jacksonian rule of war is that wars must be fought with all available force. The use of limited force is deeply repugnant. Jacksonians see war as a switch that is either "on" or "off." They do not like the idea of violence on a dimmer switch. Either the stakes are important enough to fight for -- in which case you should fight with everything you have -- or they are not, in which case you should mind your own business and stay home. To engage in a limited war is one of the costliest political decisions an American president can make -- neither Truman nor Johnson survived it. The second key concept in Jacksonian thought about war is that the strategic and tactical objective of American forces is to impose our will on the enemy with as few American casualties as possible. The Jacksonian code of military honor does not turn war into sport. It is a deadly and earnest business. This is not the chivalry of a medieval joust, or of the orderly battlefields of eighteenth-century Europe. One does not take risks with soldiers' lives to give a "fair fight." Some sectors of opinion in the United States and abroad were both shocked and appalled during the Gulf and Kosovo wars over the way in which American forces attacked the enemy from the air without engaging in much ground combat. The "turkey shoot" quality of the closing moments of the war against Iraq created a particularly painful impression. Jacksonians dismiss such thoughts out of hand. It is the obvious duty of American leaders to crush the forces arrayed against us as quickly, thoroughly and professionally as possible. Jacksonian opinion takes a broad view of the permissible targets in war. Again reflecting a very old cultural heritage, Jacksonians believe that the enemy's will to fight is a legitimate target of war, even if this involves American forces in attacks on civilian lives, establishments and property. The colonial wars, the Revolution and the Indian wars all give ample evidence of this view, and General William Tecumseh Sherman's March to the Sea showed the degree to which the targeting of civilian morale through systematic violence and destruction could, to widespread popular applause, become an acknowledged warfighting strategy, even when fighting one's own rebellious kindred. Probably as a result of frontier warfare, Jacksonian opinion came to believe that it was breaking the spirit of the enemy nation, rather than the fighting power of the enemy's armies, that was the chief object of warfare. It was not enough to defeat a tribe in battle; one had to "pacify" the tribe, to convince it utterly that resistance was and always would be futile and destructive. For this to happen, the war had to go to the enemy's home. The villages had to be burned, food supplies destroyed, civilians had to be killed. From the tiniest child to the most revered of the elderly sages, everyone in the enemy nation had to understand that further armed resistance to the will of the American people -- whatever that might be -- was simply not an option. With the development of air power and, later, of nuclear weapons, this long-standing cultural acceptance of civilian targeting assumed new importance. Wilsonians and Jeffersonians protested even at the time against the deliberate terror bombing of civilian targets in the Second World War. Since 1945 there has been much agonized review of the American decision to use atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. None of this hand wringing has made the slightest impression on the Jacksonian view that the bombings were self-evidently justified and right. During both the Vietnam and Korean conflicts, there were serious proposals in Jacksonian quarters to use nuclear weapons -- why else have them? The only reason Jacksonian opinion has ever accepted not to use nuclear weapons is the prospect of retaliation. Jacksonians also have strong ideas about how wars should end. "There is no substitute for victory," as General MacArthur said, and the only sure sign of victory is the "unconditional surrender" of enemy forces. Just as Jacksonian opinion resents limits on American weapons and tactics, it also resents stopping short of victory. Unconditional surrender is not always a literal and absolute demand. The Confederate surrenders in 1865 included generous provisions for the losing armies. The Japanese were assured after the Potsdam Declaration that, while the United States insisted on unconditional surrender and acceptance of the terms, they could keep the "emperor system" after the war. However, there is only so much give in the idea: all resistance must cease; U.S. forces must make an unopposed entry into and occupation of the surrendering country; the political objectives of the war must be conceded in toto." Jacksonian America's love affair with weapons is, of course, the despair of the rest of the country. Jacksonian culture values firearms, and the freedom to own and use them. The right to bear arms is a mark of civic and social equality, and knowing how to care for firearms is an important part of life. Jacksonians are armed for defense: of the home and person against robbers; against usurpations of the federal government; and of the United States against its enemies. In one war after another, Jacksonians have flocked to the colors. Independent and difficult to discipline, they have nevertheless demonstrated magnificent fighting qualities in every corner of the world. "Culture: God in America," The Objective American, E.G. Ross, March 10, 2003 Because America is, according to certain surveys, a religious nation, certain reason advocates assume that Americans do not possess a solid metaphysics. Because of their religion, goes this criticism, Americans are fundamentally ungrounded in reality and are not to be trusted. On the individual level, I've heard this exact criticism leveled at President Bush: his religious faith disqualifies him from executive competency. In order to sort his out, one has to distinguish between what's held explicitly and what's held implicitly. In my experience, America is the most implicitly pro-existence society that's ever been. This trait is deeply in grained in the culture. It's an integral part of what makes US citizens who they are. Out of religion's repository of values, they pick and choose the ones they think best apply to their lives Most say they pick the values that seem most reasonable to them. In other words, whether or not they always use it as wisely as the anti-religious critics believe they should, reason is at least nominally their chief tool of judgment... One final note: I think an oft-overlooked reason why many Americans are believers is out of homage to a proud tradition. Religion is a powerful part of the heritage that helped build this nation. Today's believers want to be a part of that heritage. They want the continuity with a history they admire and revere. The believe out of respect -- out of respect for the God-loving pioneers, frontiersmen, soldiers, industrialists, and others involved in the creation and maintenance of this unique land. "Optimism," Objective American, November 29, 2002 My optimistic view of the future is based on the fact that man also rises. I don't automatically assume a benign government, but I do assume a benevolently clever American public. Granted, there is corruption of rule in law. Not just in the US but everywhere. We say more than our share of it during the Clinton years -- but it's hardly new The corruption has been around, waxing and waning, since the beginning of the Republic. Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Mason, Washington and many others worried about exactly the question that bothers you. Some of them feared that the Republic might not last 50 years. Yet, here it is, over two centuries later, alive and kicking and more prosperous and admired than ever -- and moving forward faster than most nations -- and on track to become the freest and most populous nation in the planet. To pessimists, it doesn't seem that it should be possible. From a pessimist's point of view, you'd think the corruption would have ground the country into a grease spot long ago. What accounts for its resilience? Among other things, Americans have a pronounced tendency to ignore or work around corruption -- and do so to a degree that is far greater than most of us -- including the pundits and scholars and futurists -- realize. "God vs. Individualism," Objective American, May 30, 2001 Yes, ideas matter. But it's also true that not all bad ideas prevail. In the US, the pro-collectivist tendencies of mainstream churches tend to bow to the pro-individualist principles of the Constitution. It's a huge cultural positive. It's another example of why it's terribly important to learn how to think in principles. And in indispensable part of properly understanding principled thought is this: not all negative principles are ascendant. That is, not all rotten implications of a crummy idea necessarily come to pass. Why?? Because other principles trump them -- and in America, it's usually the positive ones that trump the negative ones. This is a striking reason why the country has held up reasonably well over the last two-and-a-quarter centuries. It's part of why the US repeatedly foils the forecasters of failure. We are not going to the Devil, falling into an Atlas Shrugged type of collapse, descending into the abyss of environmental catastrophe, or sliding into an overpopulation Armageddon. The most obvious, objectively verifiable fact today is that the US keeps prosperously chugging along despite the many predictions of gloom and doom -- be the loosely based in religion, politics, or science. When the collapses keep collapsing, it's time to reexamine the pessimistic predictors' premises. One of these days, I'm going to spend some time delving into the philosophy of foriegn policy. But for now, Paul's tidbits will have to do. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, November 11, 2004 Patton on Sacrifice in War By Diana Hsieh @ 5:22 PM On this Veterans Day, John Enright reminds me of one of my favorite lines from George Patton: "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." I salute all of those American soldiers who have ever made "the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Evil Empire By Diana Hsieh @ 2:05 PM Oh no! We're doomed! Microsoft is sure to gain control over our most private thoughts by offering us bloggers a tempting deal: If you're a blogger, MSN might come to you and say, "We want to distribute you. We'll send you traffic and we want you to run these ads on your site, and you'll get a share of revenues on that." That's probably an offer that many bloggers are going to be interested in because they don't want to have to invest in creating that kind of infrastructure, and they would value the traffic. Some of the comments in response to the post were quite revealing. For example: Ever since the Internet began, Microsoft tried to control it. They got rid of Netscape because it had a browser everybody was using. They tried exercising control through their operating systems. This did not work. They are attacking Open Source. We must make sure it does not work. Now Microsoft is trying to gain control of bloggers. At the present time, bloggers seem to be a truly independent group of people. Some are liberal, some are conservative, some are religious, some are amoral, some are just independent thinkers, some are mostly emotional. They write about what they damn please. Microsoft does not like it. Somehow bloggers must be made part of its system so that it may exercise control. All members of the Internet must fight Microsoft on this. We want to keep the Internet Open and allow every single person a voice. This gives strength to the little guy against the powerful. It is one of the few remaining strengths for the little guy. Don't allow Microsoft - or any other powerful entity - control over bloggers. I am one blogger that will have no truck with Microsoft. As someone else asked, "Is Microsoft directing traffic to blogs anymore corruptive than newspapers printing op-eds or columnists?" More generally, why value the voice of the little guy in a free society? Why do the meek, small, and easily corruptible have some special value that must be protected? (Answer: The ethics of altruism.) In any case, blogging is hardly an egalitarian medium. In fact, it's quite the reverse. The more talented and interesting writers generally rise to prominence, while the idiotic boobs and partisan hacks saying nothing noteworthy generally sink into well-deserved obscurity. The blogosphere is a generally fluid, friendly, and speedy medium, not some sleepy small town filled with Mom & Pop Shops run by Little Guys and Their Wives. Its readers generally value innovation in thought and clarity in writing, not whatever it is that "the little guy" is supposed to bring to the table. Oh, but I forgot, Microsoft wishes to crush us all. Silly me, I thought they were merely a software company attempting to sell us their wares, not an Evil Empire of Destruction Hell Bent On For Its Own Sake. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Deserting to Hell By Diana Hsieh @ 6:37 AM When I first heard the news about the deserter from the U.S. Army during the Korean War who lived in North Korea for forty years, I presumed that he was actually enamoured of that freaky cult-communist regime. So it seemed like he got off easily with only a 30 day imprisonment. In fact, that soldier, Charles Jenkins, was just scared of being shot or sent to Vietnam. After he deserted, he was imprisoned with four other American soldiers -- often beaten, starved, and indocrinated -- in North Korea for decades, despite his desire to return to the US. Of the other three soldiers, two are dead and one remains in North Korea. (The remaining soldier was often the "enforcer" of punishment in the group, so he hardly deserves to be rescued.) Amazingly enough, in 1980, when the soldiers were finally able to live in houses of their own, Charles Jenkins married Hitomi Soga, one of the Japanese women kidnapped by North Korea in 1978. Two years ago, Soga was permitted to return to Japan. Jenkins and their two daughters were allowed to follow her to Japan this July. Charles Jenkins' years of captivity in North Korea do not erase his cowardice in deserting, but they certainly consitute more than enough punishment. I cannot but wish him and his family well. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, November 10, 2004 Death Becomes Him By Diana Hsieh @ 9:56 PM Well, it's about time Arafat croaked. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Miracle! By Diana Hsieh @ 7:15 PM Oh my, it's a miracle! Some poor guy was blinded four times in the same eye! Wow, the guy recovered his sight from blindness at least three times! That's a miracle! He should be canonized! Actually, it was just just insurance fraud. If only other miraculous claims could be so delightfully debunked, perhaps we wouldn't be drowning in saints. (Actually, I'm all in favor of the sainthood of certain illustrious Catholics, such as Thomas Aquinas. But if old Tom is a saint, then Aristotle ought to be declared at least a demi-God!) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Really, She's an Artiste! By Diana Hsieh @ 7:14 PM My friend Dave Jilk sent me to this silly story on a daring new painter hailed by the many in the art world. She is only 4 years old. Frankly, she's better than most abstract artists. Not only does she have a fairly decent grasp of colors that go well together, but she has the good sense not to preface her work with stupid claims about the deep metaphysical meaning of her work. Some of it (e.g. "Asian Sun" and "Dinosaur") would make good decoration, which is far more than I would say of most abstract art. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, November 09, 2004 Hierachy of Disdain and More By Diana Hsieh @ 1:09 PM Paul has dug up a few interesting links of late which I thought worth posting: The Hierarchy of Bloggers tells us who looks down upon whom in and around the blogosphere. These Election Results Maps are not your father's Red State / Blue State maps. Den Beste on Transnational Progressivism or Why The Reports of the Death of the Left are Premature. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Inshallahism By Diana Hsieh @ 11:34 AM Reader John Bragg e-mailed me the following question: I've been looking for a word for a concept at the seam line of ethics, psychology and theology. The idea is the converse of "God helps those who help themselves"--the idea that efficacy is primarily in the hands of God, so consistent attention to details is unnecessary. "If your heart is pure, and you do what God asks, He will take care of the details." From an Islamic Glossary online: "Muslims are to strive hard and to put their trusts with Allah. They leave the results in the hands of Allah." Examples would be the shockingly low rates of seat belt use in Saudi Arabia. If God wants you to live, then you will live. If God wants you to die, a seat belt isn't going to save you. Also see Arab-Muslim levels of maintenance on sophisticated weaponry. If God wants the MIG to fly, it'll fly. If God wants it to crash, it'll crash. Whether the rivets are tightened is almost beside the point. If God wants you to liberate Iraq, then resolving differences within your Administration about the priority of democracy, stability, fighting terrorists, having a strategic reserve for use against other targets and US force protection are more or less beside the point. You follow God's instructions, and, God willing, He will work it out. If there is no word, then I'll start using the neologism "Inshallahism." I can't seem to think of a proper term, but I'm sure that some obscure concept from Medieval theology must be applicable. Any suggestions? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, November 05, 2004 Bush the Theocrat? By Diana Hsieh @ 9:20 AM George Bush the Elder on politics and religion in a 1987 exchange with Robert Sherman of the American Atheists Press: Sherman: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?" Bush: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me." Sherman: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?" Bush: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Sherman: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?" Bush: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists." George Bush the Younger on politics and religion in his recent press conference: Q: Mr. President, your victory at the polls came about in part because of strong support from people of faith, in particular Christian evangelicals and Pentecostals and others. And Senator Kerry drew some of his strongest support from those who do not attend religious services. What do you make of this religious divide it seems becoming a political divide in this country? And what do you say to those who are concerned about the role of a faith they do not share in public life and in your policies? Bush: Yeah. My answer to people is I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me, necessarily, on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society. The great--the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, you're just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad--I appreciate all people who voted. And I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics [of] the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites us is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you--you don't have to worship. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is--that is such a wonderful aspect of our society, and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow. Oy, what a difference! Labels: Religion E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, November 03, 2004 Voter Turnout By Diana Hsieh @ 7:31 AM So voter turnout was high after all. 120 million people voted; that's just under 60%, the most since 1968. Obviously, lots of people had strong views about the Giant Douche and the Turd Sandwich. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, November 02, 2004 Preview of Philosophy Graduate School Rankings By Diana Hsieh @ 1:41 PM Brian Leiter has posted a preview of the new Philosophical Gourmet Report. (The full report will be posted here in about two weeks.) Sadly, Boulder is likely to slip in the rankings from its present position at #28 to somewhere worse than #35 due to our hemmorage of faculty over the past year. Hopefully, our department will rebound in the next set of rankings. Also: Brian Leiter recently linked to Metanome, a new blog on teaching philosophy. (They are seeking contributors!) I'm quite interested in the challenges of teaching philosophy well, so its good to see some discussion of the topic in the blogosphere. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Political Quiz By Diana Hsieh @ 7:15 AM I just got 10 out of 20 right on the The John Kerry/Michael Moore/Osama Bin Laden Quiz. Like the Al Gore/Unabomber Quiz, it requires you to identify the source of various quotes. As for Osama's use of Moore's material in his latest speech, I second the comments of Megan McArdle: Should we be bothered because Osama seems to have gotten a helping hand with his propaganda from Michael Moore? Documentary makers, like journalists, are a vital part of a free society's feedback mechanism. Should journalists or filmmakers refrain from criticising the administration because the country's enemies might pick up on it for propaganda purposes? Hell no. The problem is that Michael Moore has provided Osama with propaganda composed of gross exaggeration, artful misdirection and cheap shots. A healthy society allows for that, as the price of our liberal principles. But just because we don't want to ban it doesn't mean that we should laud it. Michael Moore made a movie that's fundamentally dishonest in order to score political points, and in doing so, he has helped the cause of his country's enemies. We know that he isn't ashamed; he has no shame. But his fellow citizens should be outraged. Shame, shame, shame on that dishonest boob Michael Moore. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, November 01, 2004 Better to Smoke Crack Than Drink Alcohol While Pregnant By Diana Hsieh @ 10:54 PM No really. (It's actually a really interesting article on the myth of the "crack baby." But I was inspired by this line: "Most [so-called "crack babies"] fare far better, in fact, than children whose mothers drink heavily while pregnant.") Sadly, it seems that "crack babies" were more harmed by the label than by the drugs. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Depressing Election By Diana Hsieh @ 8:26 AM David Bernstein hits the nail on the head as to the depressing choice we face in this election, particularly why the Republicans are wholly unworthy of political power. This is the most depressing presidential election for a libertarian since 1972. Maybe it's worse than 1972, because that year one could, with good conscience, vote for Libertarian candidate John Hospers. This year, the Libertarian candidate is embarassing. And Ralph Nader has become a parody of the man who once supported some forms of deregulation because it benefitted consumers. I find virtually nothing to admire about John Kerry. W. deserves credit for a certain steadfastness in the War on Terror, but his administration is suffused with the sort of hubris, sense of entitlement to power, and belief in the ameliorative powers of government action (in both the foreign and domestic realms) that one normally associates with the worst types of statists. And let's not forget the Administration's blatant lies about the cost of the Medicare law, and Karl Rove's apparent plan to drive all well-educated, secular folks out of the party in exchange for the votes of the most ignorant elements of the fundamentalist community, a traditional Democratic stronghold. I am concerned about the future of the Supreme Court, but I expect that Bush would most likely appoint a "moderate" and easily confirmable Latino who could help woo voters to the GOP side than appoint a principled believer in the American constitution. The Republican Congress, meanwhile, has proven worse than a disappointment; it's a disaster of monumental proportions. Congressional Republicans, as a group, have but one goal, and that's to wield power. The current Congress makes the corrupt Democrats of the O'Neil-Wright era look like great statesmen. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that the Democrats would be better (whatever happened to the "reform" wing of the Democratic Party? Did it die its final death when Robert Reich was expelled from the Clinton Administration for talking too much about corporate tax breaks and other special interest giveaways? Can you believe that every single House Democrat voted for the obscene farm bill, which redistributes income upwards?), and can easily imagine them being worse, by, for example, turning the entire health care industry into a nationalized playground for Democratic interest groups. Congress has become a wholly owned subsidiary of special interests, and that suits its Members just fine. So forgive me if I haven't been able to drum up enthusiasm for blogging about this election. As has been the case for years, I'm much more concerned with the general intellectual climate than the results of this election, as this climate dictates the range of politically feasible government action. And with neither party even giving lip service to limited government in any given sphere (with the exception of Democrats and abortion), the climate is bad indeed. To put it more bluntly, our choice really is between a Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. Although Kerry is horrid, both as a person and as a politician, a Republican loss might inspire a few thoughts of limited government and fiscal conservatism amongst the Republicans. Bush seems likely to win, however, so I'm not too hopeful. In some significant sense, I don't really care who wins. I just want the winner to win by a substantial-enough margin so as to demonstrate legitimacy and preclude litigation. (Of course, the seeming loser could always bow out gracefully, but that's a pipe dream from a different era!) Honestly, I'm not sure that our basic institutions of government could withstand too many more contested elections. Given the violence already witnessed in this election, riots, armed revolt, and dictatorship could become a serious concern if legitimacy continues to be doubted by so many. Then again, since the violent, unruly ones seem to be mostly Democrats, perhaps it is best that Republicans have most of the guns. Or maybe not. Giant Douche. Turd Sandwich. We report. You decide. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis

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