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

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 Children's Letters To God By Paul @ 10:00 PM They're all pretty good. However, these are probably my favorite: Dear God, Are you really invisible, or is that just a trick? Lucy. Dear God, In Bible times, did they really talk that fancy? Jennifer E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis A Fan Letter By Diana Hsieh @ 11:52 AM Normally, I don't publish letters from readers of NoodleFood, but occasionally, I receive one so amazing that I cannot resist sharing it. Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:34:42 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Hardesty To: diana@dianahsieh.com Subject: You Are Totally Ignorant Of The History Of The Middle East 1) The Zionist Connection by Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal 2) The Question of Palestine by Edward Said 3) The Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky 4) The Great War For Civilization: The Conquest of The Middle East by Robert Fisk 5) What Price Israel ? by Alfred M. Lilienthal 6) The Other Side of The Coin by Alfred M. Lilienthal 7) Pity The Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon by Robert Fisk There are many other works but these will constitute an excellent start and help you to BEGIN to conquer the Grand Canyon-sized abyss of ignorance that has characterized ALL of you're rantings on this subject. I'd be willing, with compensation, to do a point by point rebuttal to all of you're published comments on this subject from terrorism, Israel & the USA have long been the leading terrorist states on the planet, to you're racist views on Arabs and the Fox News cartoon "understanding" of Islam, as if that religion was more irrational than Judaism and Christianity or more historically violent than those two. I agree with you on the PARC issue but both sides are totally off the wall on foreign policy and particularly the Middle East. Rand's incredibly racist views towards Arabs and American Indians as exemplified in Ayn Rand Answers are far more a condemnation of her than anything asserted by the Brandens. Not to mention her Nazi-like views on retarded children in same. They should be hidden away from normal kids !!!!!!!!!!! LBJ looks like an enlightened philosopher by contrast. Unfortunately shifting from the Brandenite TOC line to the ARI party line is not an indication of independent thinking. Anymore than the shift of many New Republic readers from allegiance to the Soviet state to allegiance to the Israeli state. Same old treason in a new form. You'll have to pardon the tone here but in reading you're various diatribes from Terri Schiavo to the Middle East, I have found you to be a nasty, loudmouthed asshole. So I adapt my style to the recipient, in you're case I'm sure I'm being too polite. Michael Hardesty Wow, what a fantastic suggested reading list: not just Noam Chomsky, but two by Robert Fisk! (Yes, I heard enough from the America-hating leftists on that list not to waste my time reading their books.) And that was nice job of misrepresenting Ayn Rand's views too. Indeed, I don't "have to pardon the tone" of that letter -- and I won't! I do really wonder why a person would take the time and effort to write such a supposedly educational letter -- while brazenly declaring their total contempt for the mind of his reader? I can understand someone disagreeing with me, disliking me, or whatnot -- but that kind of self-contradictory action is beyond bizarre. Well, I can only hope that Mr. Hardesty will send me another nice note to clarify. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Fruits of Capitalism By Diana Hsieh @ 7:30 AM A few days ago, Paul and I were leafing through the catalog of the Anatomical Chart Company, pondering some of the strangely creepy items they sell -- like the "maternity mug." However, both of us thought that nothing beat the "life sized model of the scrotum and testicles, made from BIOLIKE synthetic tissue." There's even a picture of someone handling it, just so that you can see how delightfully squeezable it is! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Anne Applebaum's Husband By Diana Hsieh @ 7:25 AM When I read Anne Applebaum's recent column, I noticed that her byline reads: "The writer's husband was recently named Poland's defense minister." Yes, it's but true! (The AEI web site a better biographical sketch of Radek Sikorski up through 2002.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, January 30, 2006 On Hamas By Diana Hsieh @ 3:17 PM Daniel Pipes has some interesting Thoughts on Hamas' Ascendance: Voting today in the Palestinian Authority pits Fatah against Hamas. This face-off can be read as the corrupt, old-line Palestinian powerbroker versus the disciplined upstart, or as Yasir Arafat's ideologically flexible organization versus Ahmed Yassin's Islamist vehicle. On the key question of their attitude toward Israel, Fatah is willing to negotiate with Israel to gain territory and other benefits, while Hamas on principle refuses to deal with the "Zionist entity." But the difference is between them is mostly illusory, as Fatah in fact engages in terrorism and Hamas does talk to the Israelis. For reasons that somewhat escape my understanding, on this basis, Fatah is dubbed moderate and Hamas extremist; or, in the even more dramatic terms of an Associated Press headline today, "Palestinians choose between pursuing peace or confrontation with Israel." In fact, the differences between them are merely tactical; a more accurate headline would be "Palestinians choose between pursuing more overt or more covert destruction of Israel." Basically, Hamas speaks its mind and Fatah dares not. And Hamas provides the social services that Fatah cannot because its honchos have stolen the funds. Ironically, this means that there is some reason to prefer Hamas to Fatah, for it prompts a more negative response from Israelis, Europeans, Americans, and others. But the New York Sun has already made this point for me a couple of days ago, in a house editorial titled "Recipe for Trouble": a victory by Hamas, evil though the organization is, might not be all bad. At least then it would be clear to everyone what Israel is facing, an enemy committed to its complete destruction. ... With Hamas in power, the Palestinian Authority could be seen, even by the American state department, for what it is, a terrorist state with the aim of destroying a free and democratic American ally. It would join the ranks of Iran and Syria as a rogue state that America would seek to isolate and roll back rather than subsidize with taxpayer dollars. So, while I do not wish Hamas well in any manner at all (an article of mine appearing today in USA Today calls for it to be destroyed), there will likely be some benefit in having it complicit in the Palestinian Authority. (January 25, 2006) I've not bothered to reproduce the links, but those can be found in the original. For those interested in understanding the grave problems of the Middle East -- and its effects upon the West -- I would highly recomment Pipes' book Militant Islam Reaches America. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Nationalism and Alcoholism (Sort of) By Diana Hsieh @ 8:35 AM I must admit, I wasn't particularly impressed by Daniel Pipes' compilation of examples of European governments standing up to the irrational demands of Islamists under the heading of The West Stands Up for Its Customs. Although supposedly evidence that "there is still fight left in the old continent," too many of the incidents centered around national tradition and ... yes ... serving alcohol. This quote from an editor of a Dutch newspaper seems to pretty much capture the state of play: "It's funny. We now want to teach immigrants more about our identity, and we discover that we're not sure what's left of it!" If Europeans are limited to defending the accidental features of its culture rather than any universal values, then Europe is doomed to be overrun by the barbarians in short order. In that case, don't expect substantial opposition to Islamism, except in the form of xenophobic fascism. And Europe would probably self-destruct in face of that kind of horror again. Also, in case you haven't heard of it, the ongoing brouhaha in Denmark over twelve depictions of Mohammed published this fall in a Danish newspaper is quite stunning. In face of great opposition, the Danish government has remained firm: it has "repeatedly rejected calls to intervene in the matter, saying the government has no say over media." Meanwhile, Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia are boycotting Danish products, withdrawing their ambassadors to Denmark, protesting en masse, and so on. In contrast, the government of Norway capitulated after its media reprinted the drawings. Their embassies received a letter from the Foreign Ministry instructing them to say that the drawing caused "distrust and unnecessary conflicts" between Muslims and Norway. And their Foreign Minister said "I am sorry that the publications of the Prophet Muhammad in the Magazinet has caused unrest in the Muslim community." How about if the crazed zealot Muslims causing the unrest apologized for their total lack of respect reason, reality, and rights instead?!? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Long Overdue Lawsuit Announcement By Diana Hsieh @ 7:53 AM I'm pleased to report that the lawsuit against me originally filed on behalf of Dr. Ignatius Piazza and Front Sight Firearms Training Institute over this web site was settled just before the case was scheduled to go to trial in April 2005. Although the details of the settlement are confidential, I can say that I'm reasonably happy with it. The lawsuit was a long and unpleasant ordeal, so I'm glad that it's behind me. As for the web site, it will remain where it is for the foreseeable future. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, January 29, 2006 Mockery of Marriage By Diana Hsieh @ 3:12 PM Miss Manners just wrote about the impropriety of wedding reenactments -- as opposed to say, receptions within a year of the wedding and anniversary parties thereafter. I loved the last line: "What [married couples] should not be doing is making a mockery of the marriage ceremony by holding mock ceremonies. They may be able to reproduce the starry-eyed look, but they will never manage that tiny note of 'What am I doing?' that makes it exciting." Although I had no doubts about marrying Paul, I do remember that "What am I doing?" feeling of our wedding. Now that I know exactly what I've gotten myself into with my vows, I certainly couldn't manage to reproduce all the scary delights of the actual wedding. Then again, nor would I wish to do so, since it was an extremely stressful event to plan! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Meaning of Censorship By Diana Hsieh @ 3:02 PM What does Google's collusion with the Chinese government to censor its search results mean? It's the difference between fact and illusion. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, January 27, 2006 Jim Mertz By Diana Hsieh @ 9:30 PM My grandfather Jim Mertz passed away on Wednesday. (Some of you might remember my speaking of him this post.) Although as mentally sharp as ever, he'd been struggling with his physical health for the past few months. Paul and I flew to New York today for his funeral on Saturday. It will be an honor to pay my respects to such an excellent man. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis First Question for NoodleFood By Diana Hsieh @ 12:59 PM So here's our first "Question for NoodleFood," courtesy of Ergo: I'm reading Plato's Theaetetus now. And in the dialogue, Socrates askes, "What is knowledge? How does one define knowledge?" Then he goes around arguing against definitions like knowledge is perception or that knowlege is understanding. My own thoughts on this were: in order to even ask the question, "what is knowledge", shouldn't one have the implicit understanding that one KNOWS what to ask?? Doesn't that then lead us to an infinite regression? Knowing about what it would mean to know? And how does one know that? etc. etc. What is the Objectivist definition of knowledge? Did Rand explicitly define knowlege or say what it is? I'd look in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand for any detailed discussions of the nature of knowledge. Perhaps most on point is Ayn Rand's comment in Chapter 4 of IOE that "the concept 'knowledge' is formed by retaining its distinguishing characteristics (a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation) and omitting the particular fact(s) involved." The central fact captured by the concept "knowledge" is that of awareness of reality, i.e. consciousness. As an axiomatic concept, "consciousness" cannot be further analyzed in terms of other concepts, as the problematic attempts to define it as "justified true belief." It is also self-evident, not to mention unable to be denied without contradiction. If I understand your infinite regress problem, your worry is that we cannot inquire about the nature of knowledge without at least some knowledge of the object of our inquiry. (In a more general form, that's the problem raised in Plato's Meno supposedly solved by the theory of recollection.) In fact, we must have a great deal of knowledge before we can even form the concept "knowledge," let alone refine it to a sharp philosophical point. More generally, a great deal of awareness of reality must proceed any introspection of our mental processes, since we must have some content upon which to introspect.) To put the point another way, we do not start our investigation of the nature of knowledge from the point of knowing nothing. In fact, we could not do so, since then we would be blindly groping in the dark. (Heck, we wouldn't even be blindly groping, since we wouldn't be conscious!) More precisely, we wouldn't have the data required to even form the relevant concepts, that data being a range of instances of knowledge and contrasting instances of ignorance or error or doubt. So we have lots of knowledge before we ever consider what knowledge is. We are aware of the world, both perceptually and conceptually, from our earliest years, even though we haven't yet introspected to form the concept "knowledge." And even once we've formed the basic concept, we can come to better understand the nature of knowledge by further introspection. For example, from our earliest childhood, we might understand that bears and penguins and birds are all kinds of animals, meaning that our knowledge actually is hierarchical, without explicitly understanding yet that all knowledge is hierarchical. Then years later, we can reflect upon such actual hierarchies in order to come to the explicit conclusion that knowledge is hierarchical. Ultimately, I think that your worry may boil down to something like: How can we validate the senses when we must rely upon the senses in the very attempt? How can we validate reason without relying upon reason? The answer is that we can't -- and that we need not do so. Any attempt to prove the validity of the senses does rely upon the validity of the senses, but so does any attempt to deny their validity too. The same applies to reason, in that the very demand to "prove" reason presupposes that reason is authoritative. The validity of reason and the senses are inescapable and self-evident facts -- and that's how we establish them. As Dr. Peikoff says in OPAR: "Why should I accept reason?" means: "Why should I accept reality?" The answer is that existence exists, and only existence exists. Man's choice is either to accept reason or to consign his consciousness and life to a void. One cannot seek a proof that reason is reliable, because reason is the faculty of proof; one must accept and use reason in any attempt to prove anything. But, using reason, one can identify its relationship to the facts of reality and thereby validate the faculty. Similarly, any investigation of the nature of knowledge will depend upon a wide range of fact that we already know. That's not a problem though, since the skeptic who denies the possibility of knowledge can only do so on the basis of the great deal of knowledge that he already has. We simply cannot understand knowledge from the vantage point of total ignorance -- and the demand that we do so is illegitimate. The concept "knowledge" works that way precisely because the axiomatic concept "consciousness" is at its core. Admittedly, these are rather mind-bending issues. If you want some further details, I'd recommend the lengthy discussion of hierarchy in the first few lectures of Objectivism: State of the Art. Further thoughts, Oh Gentle Readers? E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Questions for NoodleFood By Diana Hsieh @ 7:34 AM Most of you probably know of my great dislike of random questions or remarks posted on wholly unrelated blog posts. However much discussions in the comments may stray from the original topic of the blog post, NoodleFood is still not a general discussion board. Still, I'm sympathetic to the desire to ask such random questions in my comments, since NoodleFood does have such a great roster of regular commenters! In the past, I've requested that people e-mail me such questions. I reply when and as I can, sometimes even blogging the question and my answer. However, that's burdensome for me, since I'm regularly drowning just in my other e-mail. (I do work hard to keep my inbox down to a manageable size of about 25 messages., but that's quite a struggle.) So, in response to a request from Ergo, I've decided to establish something of a few feature on NoodleFood. I'll call it, "Questions for NoodleFood." Basically, if you e-mail me a question of general interest, I will blog it on NoodleFood with a request for replies in the comments. (I might also add a comment or two of my own to the blog post itself.) I particularly hope that people new to Objectivism will write in questions, as I think that the replies in the comments are likely to be helpful. And I hope that the NoodleFood commenters most knowledgeable about Objectivism will reply to these questions -- as time permits and interest motivates. All kinds of questions will be welcome, including: What is the Objectivist view of ... ? What are the best Objectivist sources on the topic of ... ? Why do Objectivists say ... about the issue of ... ? What does Ayn Rand mean in the following passage? What do you think of the lectures ... ? How can Ayn Rand's view on ... be reconciled with her view on ... ? What is wrong with idea ... from philosopher ... ? What do folks think is right or wrong about this online essay? How do I apply principle ... to my life given situation ... ? What's a good book (not necessarily by an Objectivist) on the topic of ... ? What do you think of this criticism to the Objectivist view on ...? I will not post rude or disrespectful comments, demands to respond to accusations, and the like. Please make sure that your question is worded as clearly as possible, preferably with an example or two, so that the replies in the comments may be on-target. Feel free to ask follow-up questions in the comments. (Beware: I will post the e-mail as it was sent, spelling errors and all!) If you wish to remain anonymous, just say so in the e-mail. Otherwise, I will use your name, but not your e-mail address. (You can post that in the comments, if you wish to receive private replies to your question.) If you have a blog or web site to which you'd like me to link, please mention it in the e-mail. Questions are welcome from anyone with a serious, respectful, and honest interest in Objectivism, whether in agreement with the philosophy or not. Please send your e-mail to diana@dianahsieh.com. I will post these "Questions for NoodleFood" as they arrive in my inbox. I might get one a year -- or one a week. My main concern here is simply to explicitly mention it as an option. Of course, neither I nor my commenters speak for Objectivism -- only Ayn Rand's works do that. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, January 26, 2006 Dinner, Trivia, and News By Diana Hsieh @ 10:00 PM I just returned from a delightful dinner with some of the good folks of Front Range Objectivism -- and Objectivist David Elmore, who is in Denver for the week from Atlanta. It was a pleasure to make David's acquaintance -- particularly because he's yet another Objectivist Jane Austen fan. (Someday we're all going to have a convention -- all twelve of us!) The conversation was so lively that we had to drag ourselves out of the restaurant as they were closing up, after more than three hours. It was a thoroughly enjoyable evening. Here's an interesting bit of trivia that emerged during our conversation: Does Atlas Shrugged contain a story of a vengeful suicide by a spurned lover motivated solely by the desire to cause the "beloved" pain -- and if so, what is it? The first person who remembers the basic story -- without any searches of the text -- will get a nice cheesy bowl of virtual macaroni. (Nope, I'm not offering any better prizes. I already owe Ann five dollars for being on the wrong side of a bet about this very topic!) Also, for those of you reading this tonight, you might still have a chance to catch this interview in re-run: John Allison, CEO of BB&T and a long-time admirer of Ayn Rand's ideas, will be interviewed on the FOX News Channel program "Hannity and Colmes" tonight, January 26, 2006, at 9:00 PM Eastern (6:00 PM Pacific). He will discuss his bank's new policy of refusing loans for private projects that seize land by eminent domain. It's on at midnight here in mountain time. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Nazis Still to Blame By Diana Hsieh @ 2:31 PM This old article from The Weekly Standard on NY Times reporter Walter Duranty's dishonest apologies for Soviet atrocities favorably mentioned a biography: Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty: The New York Times's Man in Moscow. When I looked up the book on Amazon, I noticed two normal, generally favorable reviews. Then there's this raving gem from an unidentified reviewer: Nazi propaganda Rehash, June 22, 2003 This book is a compilation of the same slanders that the US and European oligarhic installed Nazis promoted about Stalin. The fascist liars have a big problem in that the reports of the times from legitimate journalists contradict their Hitlerite ravings. Duranty didn't win a pulitzer prize because he was incompetent. I suggest you get a copy of the book "Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard" by Douglas Tottle [here]. It is effectively censored (as it knocks the lying fascists into the mud) off the market but your library can do an interlibrary loan for you if you ask them. You would not believe the sources the fascists use for their lies (Nazis mainly, counterfit photos from the 1920 famine when 14 capitilist countries attacked Russia all at once....they then claim these are from 1933 even though they are ALL in 1921 publications readily availabl;e!!!) and all the real sources of the time that contradict their lies they denounce. Most of these lies come from Ukrainian organizations of Nazi collaborators that were allowed into canada and the US and publish this filth as their own hands drip with real blood. Fun! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis CSI - Athens By Paul @ 12:05 AM Another mystery of the ancient world has been solved with modern DNA technology! The Athenian plague described by Thucydides in his classic "History of the Peloponnesian War" has been shown by modern DNA testing to be typhoid fever. Manolis Papagrigorakis and her colleagues at the University of Athens picked three random teeth samples from the plague victims and extracted the dental pulp. This soft core under the hard tooth covering can store pathogens and other information about the body for centuries. The researchers also tested two modern teeth to make sure that no false results were indicated. Proceeding randomly through a list of possible causes, Papagrigorakis' team tested the pulp for the bacteria responsible for the bubonic plague, typhus, anthrax, tuberculosis, cowpox and catscratch disease before finding a match in Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi -- the bacteria responsible for typhoid fever. Typhoid fever -- transmitted by contaminated food or water--causes fever, rash and diarrhea, all closely matching Thucydides' account of the terrible plague. The only thing that does not match up is the quick onset of the disease, because modern cases of typhoid fever typically take longer to gestate. "This inconsistency may be explained by a possible evolution of typhoid fever over time," Papagrigorakis writes in the paper published online in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases. "Considering the overcrowding and unsanitary conditions [especially regarding the water supply] within the walls of the besieged Athens, a typhoid epidemic would have been likely to break out." Here's the full article (PDF format). E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, January 25, 2006 Purify and Discipine Your Love By Diana Hsieh @ 9:57 PM Don Watkins recently pointed Paul and me to this delightful story from the Catholic News Service about Pope What-His-Name's first encyclical. (He told us "Hey you two...quit all that "selfish love" stuff and listen to your Pope!" Right away, Don!) I'm going to quote the whole article, since it seems like a reasonable summary, just in case you're a bulimic who just ate two pints of ice cream: VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In his first encyclical, Pope Benedict XVI called for a deeper understanding of love as a gift from God to be shared in a self-sacrificial way, both at a personal and social level. The pope said love between couples, often reduced today to selfish sexual pleasure, needs to be purified to include "concern and care for the other." Love is also charity, he said, and the church has an obligation to help the needy wherever they are found -- but its primary motives must always be spiritual, never political or ideological. The nearly 16,000-word encyclical, titled "Deus Caritas Est" ("God Is Love"), was issued Jan. 25 in seven languages. Addressed to all Catholics, it was divided into two sections, one on the meaning of love in salvation history, the other on the practice of love by the church. The pope said his aim was to "speak of the love which God lavishes upon us and which we in return must share with others." The two aspects, personal love and the practice of charity, are profoundly interconnected, he said. The encyclical begins with a phrase from the First Letter of John: "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him." The pope said the line expresses the heart of the Christian faith, which understands the creator as a loving God and which sees Christ's death as the ultimate sign of God's love for man. In today's world, however, the term "love" is frequently used and misused, he said. Most commonly, it is understood as representing "eros," the erotic love between a man and a woman. The church, from its earliest days, proposed a new vision of self-sacrificial love expressed in the word "agape," he said. At times, the pope said, the church, with all its commandments and prohibitions, has been accused of poisoning eros or of being ready to "blow the whistle" just when the joy of erotic love presented itself. But in modern society, he said, it has become clear that eros itself has been exalted and the human body debased. "Eros, reduced to pure 'sex,' has become a commodity, a mere 'thing' to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great 'yes' to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will," he said. Properly understood, he said, eros leads a man and woman to marriage, a bond that is exclusive, and therefore monogamous, as well as permanent. While it is true that the happiness of eros can give people a "foretaste of the divine," eros needs to be disciplined and purified if it is to provide more than fleeting pleasure, the pope said. The solution is to rediscover a balance between the ecstasy of eros and the unselfish love of agape, he said. The key to regaining this balance, he said, lies in a personal relationship with God and an understanding of the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ. He said Christ gives the ultimate lesson in "love of neighbor," which means: "I love even the person whom I do not like or even know." The pope said there was an essential interplay between love of God and love of neighbor. "If I have no contact whatsoever with God in my life, then I cannot see in the other anything more than the other, and I am incapable of seeing in him the image of God," he said. "But if in my life I fail completely to heed others, solely out of a desire to be 'devout' and to perform my 'religious duties,' then my relationship with God will also grow arid," he said. The second half of the encyclical makes two main points: -- As a community, the church must practice love through works of charity and attend to people's sufferings and needs, including material needs. -- The church's action stems from its spiritual mission and must never be undertaken as part of a political or ideological agenda. The pope said there was a connection between the commitment to justice and the ministry of charity, but also important distinctions. Building a just social and civil order is an essential political task to which the church contributes through its social doctrine, but it "cannot be the church's immediate responsibility," he said. "A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the church," he added. "The church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the state," the pope said. "Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice," he said. The church's role is to make the rational arguments for justice and awaken the spiritual energy needed for the sacrifices that justice requires, he said. "Christian charitable activity must be independent of parties and ideologies. It is not a means of changing the world ideologically, and it is not at the service of worldly stratagems, but it is a way of making present here and now the love which man always needs," he said. The pope examined and rejected the Marxist arguments that the poor "do not need charity but justice," and that charity is merely a means of preserving a status quo of economic injustice. He said the church must help the needy wherever they are found, and he cited Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta as an example of love in action. "One does not make the world more human by refusing to act humanely here and now," he said. And charity will always be necessary, even in the most just society, he said. In any case, he said, it is an illusion to think that the state can provide for all needs and fully resolve every problem. "We do not need a state which regulates and controls everything," but a state that supports initiatives arising from different social forces, he said. The church is one of those forces, he said. The pope said that those working for Catholic charitable organizations need to be witnesses of the faith as well as professionally competent in humanitarian affairs. The church's charitable activities, he said, should not be seen as opportunities for proselytism, in the sense of imposing the church's faith on others. "But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside," he said. Without proposing specific guidelines, he added: "A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love speak alone." The pope said that prayer should not be forgotten as the church tries to alleviate the immense needs around the world. "People who pray are not wasting their time, even though the situation appears desperate and seems to call for action alone. Piety does not undermine the struggle against the poverty of our neighbors, however extreme," he said. Since the Church is ever-so-modern, the full encyclical is posted online. Paul, with his usual refusal to take evil seriously, e-mailed Don back: "Actually, I've been trying to work on loving the Pope more. He's much hotter than the old Pope! ;-)" So I must congratulate my husband on expressing perhaps the one thought in the whole universe grosser than the encyclical itself! Bravo! Labels: Religion E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Serenity Maybe Later! By Diana Hsieh @ 9:48 PM I have no idea whether this kind of attempt to resurrect Firefly as a TV show could ever be successful, but I was certainly happy to spend a minute filling out the form. The movie Serenity is still doing well in DVD sales on Amazon: it's #6, while the Firefly series is #8. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis BB&T Bank Respects Property Rights By Paul @ 10:03 AM Here's some good news from a recent IJ Press Release: "BB&T Respects Property Rights, Won't Fund Eminent Domain Abuse" BB&T, the nation's ninth largest financial holdings company with $109.2 billion in assets, announced today that it "will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain." In a press release issued today by the bank, BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison, said, "The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it's just plain wrong. One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won't help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership." "BB&T's principled stand sets an example that should inspire other lenders and should become the new industry standard," said Institute for Justice President and General Counsel Chip Mellor. The Institute for Justice litigated the Kelo case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the taking of private property for someone else's private use in the guise of "economic development." Mellor said, "You can and should accomplish economic development through private negotiation, not the use of government force through eminent domain. As far as we're concerned, BB&T now stands for Best Bank in Town." BB&T Chairman and CEO John Allison is an Objectivist and a major supporter of the Anthem Foundation, which works to spread Objectivist ideas within mainstream academia by funding fellowships and grants to university professors. You can read more about BB&T bank's basic philosophy here. Their values page is also good. (Via Volokh Conspiracy.) E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, January 24, 2006 The Poor Rich By Diana Hsieh @ 10:07 PM I thought that I was playing the world's smallest violin in my post about The Poor Poor, but I just found an even tinier violin on which to play a mournful tune while reading this article by Daniel Gross on the struggling young people unable to afford whatever their heart desires just out of college. Happily, the author reviewing Anya Kamenetz Generation Debt: Why Now Is a Terrible Time To Be Young and Tamara Draut's Strapped: Why America's 20-and-30-Somethings Can't Get Ahead has about as much sympathy as me for these self-pitying young women. About Generation Debt, Mr. Gross writes: In Kamenetz's book, there are plenty of poor, self-pitying upper-middle-class types, disappointed that they can't have exactly what they want when they want it. Sure, it's tough to live well as a violinist or a grad student in New York today; but the same thing held 20 years ago, and 40 years ago. To improve their lot, twentysomethings have to do the same things their parents should be doing: saving more, spending less, building skills that are marketable, and aligning aspirations with abilities. It's tough to have a bourgeois life at 26. Kamenetz also makes cavalier statements about economics and career development. "The job market sucks," she proclaims. It may not be as good as it was in the 1990s, but suck is a pretty strong term. She complains that a $700 personal computer, a necessity for any young person, is expensive. Huh? Computing is incredibly cheap. The first PC I bought, that crappy, tiny Mac, cost $2,000 in 1990 dollars. Kamenetz complains that: "No employer has yet offered me a full-time job with a 401(k), a paid vacation, or any other benefits beyond the next assignment. I have a savings account but no retirement fund. I can't afford preschool fees or a mortgage anywhere near the city where I live and work." Of course, Kamenetz doesn't have kids to send to preschool. And chances are, by the time she does, she'll be able to afford preschool fees. Most people in their 20s don't realize that their incomes will rise over time (none of the people I know who have six-figure incomes today had them when they were 25), that they will marry or form a partnership with somebody else, thus increasing their income, and that they may get over having to live in the hippest possible neighborhood. Look. It's tough coming out of Ivy League schools to New York and making your way in the world. The notion that you can be--and have to be--the author of your own destiny is both terrifying and exhilarating. And for those without marketable skills, who lack social and intellectual capital, the odds are indeed stacked against them. But someone like Kamenetz, who graduated from Yale in 2002, doesn't have much to kvetch about. In the press materials accompanying the book, she notes that just after she finished the first draft, her boyfriend "proposed to me on a tiny, idyllic island off the coast of Sweden." She continues: "As I write this, boxes of china and flatware, engagement gifts, sit in our living room waiting to go into storage because they just won't fit in our insanely narrow galley kitchen. We spent a whole afternoon exchanging the inevitable silver candlesticks and crystal vases, heavy artifacts of an iconic married life that still seems to have nothing to do with ours." The inevitable silver candlesticks? Too much flatware to fit in the kitchen? We should all have such problems. And does her fiance have one of those crap temporary jobs all the drones in her generation are destined to hold forever? Not really. He's a software engineer at Google. I'm particularly unsympathetic to complaints about inadequate salaries from people who live in New York, since it's an exorbitantly expensive place to live. That's not exactly some well-kept secret, so if a person chooses to live there, then he/she must regard the expense as worth the benefits. And in that case, their complaints ought to fall on deaf ears. More generally though, I'm aghast by the presumption of such adult children that they ought to be able to gain their independence from their parents without any reduction in their lavish lifestyle, as if the world owes them whatever standard of living in which they were raised. It's long past time for such spoiled brats to grow up, I think. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Optional Values By Diana Hsieh @ 7:55 PM A while back, a NoodleFood reader asked me for references on the issue of optional values. Since I just listened to it for the first time, I thought I should mention that Leonard Peikoff's two lectures "Integration as the Essence of Personal Identity" has some rather interesting discussion of the psychological mechanisms by which a person forms his optional values. Dr. Peikoff also discusses the issue in Understanding Objectivism, albeit in more philosophic terms. And Craig Biddle's God Said has some good practical advice about cultivating and pursuing optional values. In my experience, some Objectivists -- although certainly not the above-named lecturers -- seem to misunderstand the nature of optional values in various ways, often in thinking that an individual person should be indifferent between optional values. In fact, optional values are real values promoting human life, although they are not necessary to human life universally. So one person might lead a fantastic life with children, hiking, knitting, chocolate ice cream, and computer games, while another can live a fantastic life with a wholly different set of optional values. In other words, a wide range of optional values can properly fill up and fill out a perfectly moral life, with a person's choice of career and spouse as the most important. And those choices of optional values are not arbitrary, but based upon the unique facts about a person's life, some chosen and some not. Frankly, I'm not sure that I'm as clear on this topic as I'd like to be, as I sense some thorny epistemology lurking in the background, particularly a danger of severing abstractions from concretes about which Tara Smith has rightly warned me. In any case, anyone interested in the topic should check out the lectures mentioned above. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Could the Left Get Any Sillier? By Diana Hsieh @ 7:09 PM Apparently not: Three cheers for the absurdity of Matriotism. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Killer Tests By Diana Hsieh @ 7:07 AM I have been killing myself with this so-called "intelligence test" over the past few days. I've also just started its brother-in-frustration. I've only gotten 23 of 33 on the first test so far, but my feelings about it exactly match those of my obviously smarter friend Cliff, who said: "Okay, I've got 27/33 so far. But I feel just as stupid as when I started! Still haven't given up on the last 6, though. It's funny: you can stare at some of these for a long time getting nowhere, and then suddenly it's obvious." Exactly! I think the test requires some unusual and difficult methods of scanning one's memory, since we generally don't store anything by the inessential of number. Please DO NOT post any hints or answers whatsoever in the comments. For those of you who give up, you'll find the link to the actual answers in the FAQ. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, January 23, 2006 Greg, Man of Many Talents By Diana Hsieh @ 7:57 PM An announcement from my sax-playing, philosophy-writing, computer-programming friend Greg Perkins for anyone in the Boise area: Hey, guys. Here's an early warning so you can reserve good seats before the real publicity starts. Onomatopoeia's big annual concert is almost here! It will be hotter than ever, with brand new music from a CD we're recording in the studio right now. Plus this year we'll enjoy cushy chairs, reserved seating, and three times the space in Boise's historic Egyptian Theatre! As a bonus, your screams, claps, and the annoying candy-wrapper noises from that guy a few seats down will be immortalized with crystal clarity as we stream every channel on the mixing board to a digital recorder for airing on public radio and a live concert CD. What: Kevin Kirk & Onomatopoeia (visit www.kevinkirk.net) When: Friday March 3rd, 8:00pm-10:00ish Where: Downtown Boise's Egyptian Theatre (visit www.egyptiantheatre.net ) Reserve Seats: $15-$25 at the Egyptian Ticket Office, 387-1273 (call 2:00-9:00pm) Please pass it on! Greg P.S.: I think the very best seats will be near the front on the ground floor and at the front of the balcony, so reserving seats soon is a good idea. The Egyptian tells me that the seating prices are set at $25 for the ground floor (rows B-N), $20 for the front half of the balcony (rows O-T), and $15 for the back half (rows U-Z). Here's their seating chart and a view from the balcony. One of these days, I'm going to see Greg play -- and I'm going to jump and scream like a teenage groupie! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Weekend Conference on Law, Individual Rights and the Judicial System By Diana Hsieh @ 7:53 AM As I've mentioned before, Front Range Objectivism's Weekend Conference on Law, Individual Rights and the Judicial System will be held on March 4th and 5th in Denver. It promises to be a fantastic conference. Here is the full text from the online brochure, minus the online registration form: Weekend Conference on Law, Individual Rights and the Judicial System March 4-5, 2006, Denver, Colorado Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law. — Ayn Rand The American legal system is in real trouble. Many solutions have been offered–limitations on tort damage awards, restrictions of intellectual property rights, limits on class action suits, increases and decreases in various criminal penalties, and even changes in the Senate confirmation procedure for Supreme Court Justices. Many of the reforms sought do not address the fundamental issues involved, and therefore will ultimately fail. But how does one decide whether a particular reform is appropriate? To establish and preserve a free society, citizens must recognize, as the foundation of that society, the principle of individual rights. Rights are "the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context" and provide "the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society" (Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights"). The fundamental question to be asked in evaluating any of the proposed reforms to the legal system is whether this change better ensures and protects individual rights, and, if so, how. This weekend conference, the first to focus on the application of Objectivism to legal issues, will seek to bring a richer understanding of individual rights to four topics: 1) judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, 2) property rights as they relate to eminent domain, 3) unenumerated rights, and 4) the right to privacy. These lectures relate to some of the most significant legal issues in America today. The Schedule Saturday, March 4 8:45 a.m. Lin Zinser – Opening Remarks 9:00 - 10:30 Tara Smith – Why Originalism Won't Die 10:45 - 12:15 Dana Berliner – Reading Public Use Out of the Fifth Amendment, Part I 12:15 - 1:30 Lunch on your own 1:30 - 3:00 Eric Daniels – Unenumerated Rights, Part I 3:15 - 4:45 Amy Peikoff – Is There a Right to Privacy? Part I 5:00 - 7:00 Social Hour – Cash Bar   Sunday, March 5 9:00 - 10:00 Dana Berliner – Reading Public Use Out of the Fifth Amendment, Part II 10:15 - 11:15 Eric Daniels – Unenumerated Rights, Part II 11:30 - 12:30 Amy Peikoff – Is There a Right to Privacy? Part II 12:30 - 1:30 Buffet Sandwich Luncheon (included) 1:30 - 3:30 James McCrory, Steve Plafker, Michael Conger – Panel Discussion About the Speakers and Lectures Tara Smith, PhD, will open the conference with a lecture on Why Originalism Won't Die: Common Mistakes in Competing Theories of Judicial Interpretation. In the debate over judicial interpretation of the Constitution, the theory of Originalism (advocated by Antonin Scalia, among others) has been subjected to seemingly fatal criticisms. Despite the exposure of flaws that would normally bury a theory, however, Originalism continues to attract tremendous support. What explains its resilient appeal? Why do many continue to regard it as the most reasonable basis for judicial interpretation? This lecture will answer these questions by identifying the fundamental weakness of the leading alternatives to Originalism and by demonstrating that the heart of Originalism's appeal–its promise of judicial objectivity –is illusory. All camps in this debate, we will see, suffer from serious misunderstandings of the nature of objectivity. Dana Berliner, JD, of the Institute for Justice, will present two lectures on Reading "Public Use" out of the Fifth Amendment: A Look at the Use of Eminent Domain for Private Parties in the United States. Eminent Domain, the power of government to take private property, is limited by the U.S. Constitution to "public use" and requires "just compensation" when property is taken. Without a proper understanding of the importance of property to individual rights, fuzzy language and exceptions have eroded the limitations on this governmental power. Part I will trace the history of the law of eminent domain, its inclusion in the Constitution, its subsequent interpretation by courts and other branches of government, and the relationship of the public use issue to the debate about "judicial activism" in the courts. Part II will focus on more recent developments in the issue of eminent domain, covering the development and litigation of the Kelo case at the U.S. Supreme Court, focusing on both the litigation strategy and the constitutional analysis in the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions. Ms. Berliner will also discuss the subsequent popular and political backlash, and show the difficulty of implementing philosophically consistent policy in legislation. Eric Daniels, PhD, will discuss Unenumerated Rights: From Calder v. Bull to Lawrence v. Texas. The Founding Fathers intended to create a government to secure individual rights. They listed and laid out numerous rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but they also added the Ninth Amendment to guarantee "unenumerated rights." What are these rights? How can they be protected? Has this been a successful means of protecting individual rights? These two lectures will explore the history of the framing of the Ninth Amendment and the implementation of unenumerated rights in major court decisions from the Founding to the present. They will explore how individual rights–both enumerated and unenumerated–have fared under the changing philosophies of interpretation and theories of jurisprudence that American courts have embraced. Amy Peikoff, JD, PhD, will give two lectures entitled Is There a Right to Privacy?, in which she will explain why she opposes the current legal recognition of a right to privacy. In the first lecture, she will discuss the history of the right to privacy in the United States, including descriptions of the cases in which a right to privacy has been recognized, and summaries of the main arguments given in favor of such a right. In her second lecture, Dr. Peikoff will present what she thinks is the proper approach to the legal protection of privacy, an approach based on Ayn Rand's philosophy. The conference will conclude on Sunday afternoon with a panel discussion by Jim McCrory, Steve Plafker and Michael Conger, officers of TAFOL, The Association For Objective Law, seeking to provide an integrated perspective on the issues discussed throughout the weekend sessions. These lectures, presented over one weekend, March 4 - 5, 2006, promise to be a unique experience, applying Objectivism to the philosophy of law. About the Conference If you... Wonder how to analyze legal issues from an Objectivist perspective, Are curious about how to properly interpret the U.S. Constitution, Want to better understand the Supreme Court's decisions on abortion, education, voluntary sexual acts, and eminent domain, Need CLE credit and would enjoy lectures devoid of the usual statist bias, or Want to combine a weekend of intellectual stimulation, preceded or followed by a few days of skiing in beautiful Colorado ...this conference is for you. The conference will be held at the Sheraton Denver West Hotel in Lakewood, CO, a suburb of Denver. There is a special room rate of $79 per night, plus $10 for each additional person. Make hotel reservations by February 13 (at guaranteed rates) with Sheraton Denver West, 303-987-2000, reference code FRCO3A. An airport shuttle to the hotel costs approximately $28.00 per person. To register for the conference by mail (with payment by check), please use the form on the brochure. To register for the conference online (with payment by credit card, bank transfer, or PayPal), please fill out the form at the bottom of the online brochure. For more information, contact Lin Zinser at lin@zinser.com. Conference prices: Student: $75 (by Feb. 11), $150 (after Feb. 11) Regular: $225 (by Feb. 11), $300 (after Feb. 11) Attorney CLE: $300 (by Feb. 11), $375 (after Feb. 11) This conference will be a fantastic weekend -- well worth a trip to Denver. And please note the hefty price discount for registration by February 11th! Just so that you know, the whole of NoodleFood -- Paul, Don, and myself -- will be present together at this law conference for the first time ever! (Paul has actually never met Don in person.) Our good friend Greg Perkins -- the author of the fantastic Axiomatic article on the failure of the libertarian objections to intellectual property -- will also be flying in from Boise to attend. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, January 22, 2006 Interviews with the Vampires By Diana Hsieh @ 6:19 PM Some of the die-hard defenders of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have criticized Jim Valliant for failing to interview the Brandens for his excellent book The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. Like so many others, this criticism is a pretty weak grasp at straws. After all, the whole point of PARC was to examine the lengthy books written by the Brandens about Ayn Rand, books perfectly capable of being evaluated without additional input from the authors. Moreover, given the dishonesty of the Brandens proven by an examination of those books, the only point of interviews would have been to see if the Brandens could concoct some new dishonest rationalization for their past and present immorality. Frankly, I couldn't imagine that any new lies would be so much more interesting or important than the old lies. Also, I can't help but observe that the Brandens ensured that Ayn Rand couldn't be interviewed on the subjects of their books by publishing them after her death, so just on that score they cannot rightly claim any unjust treatment. After all, they are still alive to say whatever they wish about Valliant's book. Interestingly, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have chosen to remain more or less silent about PARC. Nathaniel Branden did have something interesting to say in response to a friendly inquiry about any response to the book: No. What for? If a reader can't see what's insane about that book on his own, I doubt that help from me would accomplish much. What a perfect statement of intrinisicism! Valliant's case against the Brandens is so overwhelming that poor old Nathaniel couldn't really say much else, now could he? All his inner children must be crying! Better yet, Barbara Branden is positively bored by all the discussion of Ayn Rand's private life. In response to someone who said that "I never really cared about the Rand/Branden split issue" but that she regards the basic story as "Rand got pissed off and wrote Branden out of her life," Barbara Branden wrote: Teresa, it was a pleasure to read your post: "Why don't I care about this?" I am in total agreement with you. I am bored silly by the whole controversy, and I can't understand why everyone else isn't, also. It never ceases to amaze me that people who weren't even born at the time of Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden's break, are heatedly taking sides and hurling moral condemnations about an issue and people they know nothing about. Thanks for your sanity. That's just too perfect: The author of a smear biography on Ayn Rand suddenly decided that the central topic of that work is boring and insignificant -- at the very moment of its discredit! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Horoscopes for Philosophy Graduate Students By Diana Hsieh @ 12:15 PM This silly list of horoscopes was forwarded to the Boulder's graduate philosophy list a while back. It was attributed to "Lije," but I have no idea of the actual source. Aries: Emphasis on work, deadlines. Now would be a good time to do more reading. Drinking more than seven cups of coffee today probably not a good idea. Be trenchant! Taurus: Carefully check the premises and inferences of your latest argument. Don't neglect your foreign languages. Do more work on your papers or your thesis. Gemini: You'll find yourself fantasizing about leaving grad school and becoming a carpenter, or even a lawyer. You're behind schedule. Today would be a good day to try to get more work done. Cancer: Your arguments are subtly flawed, and everything you're doing is worthless. Today would be a good day to get more work done. Dead philosopher plays role. Leo: Beware of sectionees' sexual harassment grievances. Today would be a good day to suck up to a professor. Job market fears figure prominently. Get back to work! Virgo: Emphasis on thesis, work, classes, incompletes, procrastination. Depression not at all inappropriate at this time. Stress careful exegesis and critical assessment of texts. Libra native finds devastating objection to your best argument. Libra: Don't bother preparing for section; you can wing it anyway. Hours will be wasted gossiping in lounge. Lunar aspect highlights unfinished books. Scorpio: Problems in love relationship due to being philosophy grad student. Adopt air of bored sophistication. Grade term papers! Leo native begs question. Sagittarius: Green light flashes for trying to get more work done. Member of opposite sex annoyed by focus on work. Career prospects unpromising. Cancer would be better. Capricorn: Deep-seated confusion pervades your philosophical views. Careful attention to Wittgenstein may induce writing block. Spread rumors about who's getting jobs where. Requirements figure prominently. Aquarius: Thesis looms, considerations from seemingly distant areas of philosophy relevant. A little hand-waving goes a long way. Back up your discs! Moon in Gemini means this time, like all other times, is inauspicious. Pisces: Now is time to 'go meta', question what you're doing and why you're doing it. Undermine philosophical motivations, theories. Regress threatens. Study Cancer message for valuable clue. No matter what the month of birth, the lives of philosophy graduate students are pretty much all the same! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, January 21, 2006 Yet Another Peril Of Living Dishonesty By Paul @ 9:01 PM Apparently, this doesn't only happen on bad TV sitcoms: The African grey parrot kept squawking "I love you, Gary" as his owner, Chris Taylor, sat with girlfriend Suzy Collins on the sofa of their shared flat in Leeds, northern England. But when Taylor saw Collins's embarrassed reaction, he realized she had been having an affair -- meeting her lover in the flat whilst Ziggy looked on, the UK's Press Association reported. Ziggy even mimicked Collins's voice each time she answered her telephone, calling out "Hiya Gary," according to newspaper reports. E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Dwight's Blog By Diana Hsieh @ 11:57 AM Paul and I both love The Office. To all my fellow fans, you must know that Dwight has a blog. I kid you not. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, January 20, 2006