Why Fashion Can't Be Copyrighted By Paul @ 10:36 PM
Under current copyright law, fashion designs can't be copyrighted. This is why it's possible for stores to sell "knock-offs" of original designs. Of course, a replica maker isn't allowed to put trademarked labels on the new works, but the details of the design (such as a novel shape of skirt or a jacket tail) can be freely copied without penalty.
This article and discusses the resultant economic effects, albeit with a utilitarian slant.
The explanation as to why fashion can't be copyrighted is also interesting:
Why can't designers copyright clothes? Essentially, the law says that anything that is inherently useful can't be copyrighted. Because clothing is designed to cover the body (most of the time), it remains a utilitarian object. Items that can be separated from the clothing, such as a trademark, can be copyrighted. Hence, the horseback polo rider on Ralph Lauren clothing is copyrightable, while the polo shirt it rests on is not. A similar policy applies to handbags, which explains why Louis Vuitton, Coach, Fendi, and others liberally sprinkle trademarks all over the leather or fabric used in the bags.
I'd be curious if others think this is a proper application of intellectual property rights in this particular context. (I myself don't have a well-formed opinion yet.)
E-mail PaulPermaLinkComments (Popup)
BloggerThis
Big Changes for John Lewis By Diana Hsieh @ 12:29 AM
John Lewis told me that I could post this announcement about some significant changes in his life. He writes:
I received tenure, and promotion to Associate Professor of History, at Ashland University. I will be on academic leave next year at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center of Bowling Green State University, to complete my book Nothing Less than Victory: Military Offense and the Lessons of History under contract with Princeton University Press. I will participate in graduate seminars, including one on Political Economy that includes a section on Ayn Rand.
Casey is taking a job at Duke University Medical Center, North Carolina, in IT, to implement patient records systems in some 90 outpatient clinics. I will join here there in May of 2008. I have resigned Ashland effective May, 2008 (after my leave); my days dealing with small people at a small school are over. If anyone owns a University in NC, and needs a History professor, they should contact me.
As you might imagine, these tidbits are just the tip of the iceberg. The details are culturally significant, so I hope that John writes about them at some point.
Speaking of culturally significant, Nick Provenzo has two posts (one brief and one long) on John Lewis' initially-canceled-then-rescheduled lecture at George Mason University on Islamic totalitarianism. It was... er... exciting. You can hear that for yourself in the audio recording of the lecture.
E-mail Diana HsiehPermaLinkComments (Popup)
BloggerThis
Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's what's wrong with it!
Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'...
Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these books and articles: millions and millions of words...!
Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This 'theory' makes no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the 'Designer' was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of opposing decades of uncomfortable scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies! It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A NON-THEORY!
Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around] Sorry, squire: looks like that's all we've got...
Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.
Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human tibia, if you squint at it...
Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?
Three Recommendations By Diana Hsieh @ 6:50 AM
Paul and I just finished watching Spike Lee's Inside Man. It's has very clever plot, with excellent performances by Denzel Washington and Jodie Foster. Highly recommended.
We also recently watched Edward Norton in The Illusionist. That was wonderfully done -- and very provocative. Paul and I had a fairly lengthy discussion about whether what was done in the movie was just. Neither of us budged the other, but it was interesting! (Please, don't post any spoilers in the comments.)
Also, we've been watching the first season of Coupling. It really is "the outrageous comedy about nothing but sex": I've enjoyed multiple "pause the DVD to laugh uncontrollably for a minute or two" moments. "Inferno" was particularly good for that.
E-mail Diana HsiehPermaLinkComments (Popup)
BloggerThis
Monday, May 28, 2007
Notes from Parents By Diana Hsieh @ 6:18 PM
I've seen these funny notes from parents to school before, but they still make me laugh:
My son is under a doctor's care and should not take P.E. today. Please execute him.
Please excuse Lisa for being absent. She was sick and I had her shot.
Dear School: Please exscuse John being absent on Jan. 28, 29,30, 31, 32, and also 33.
Please excuse Gloria from Jim today. She is administrating.
Please excuse Roland from P.E. for a few days. Yesterday he fell out of a tree and misplaced his hip.
John has been absent because he had two teeth taken out of his face.
Carlos was absent yesterday because he was playing football. He was hurt in the growing part.
Megan could not come to school today because she has been bothered by very close veins.
Chris will not be in school cus he has an acre in his side.
Please excuse Ray Friday from school. He has very loose vowels.
Please excuse Pedro from being absent yesterday. He had (diahre) (dyrea) (direathe) the runs. [words in ()'s were crossed out.]
Please excuse Burma, she has been sick and under the doctor.
Irving was absent yesterday because he missed his bust.
Please excuse Jimmy for being. It was his father's fault.
I kept Billie home because she had to go Christmas shopping because I don't know what size she wears.
Please excuse Jennifer for missing school yesterday. We forgot to get the Sunday paper off the porch, and when we found it Monday, we thought it was Sunday.
Sally won't be in school a week from Friday. We have to attend her funeral.
My daughter was absent yesterday because she was tired. She spent a weekend with the Marines.
Please excuse Jason for being absent yesterday. He had a cold and could not breed well.
Please excuse Mary for being absent yesterday. She was in bed with gramps.
Maryann was absent December 11-16, because she had a fever, sore throat, headache and upset stomach. Her sister was also sick, fever and sore throat, her brother had a low grade fever and ached all over. I wasn't the best either, sore throat and fever. There must be something going around, her father even got hot last night.
Please excuse little Jimmy for not being in school yesterday. His father is gone and I could not get him ready because I was in bed with the doctor.
Stupid Criminal Of The Day By Paul @ 12:01 AM
Christopher Emmorey tried to rob a bank by "demanding that the teller give him $5,000 and telling her he had a gun in his pocket."
Web Hosting By Diana Hsieh @ 8:02 AM
On occasion, I'm asked about recommendations for web hosting. Until recently, I could say nothing, since for years I owned my own co-location server and then hosted with a friend. However, I recently switched over to Web Hosting Buzz. They've been reliable and prompt in their customer service. They have a great suite of programs. They're also insanely cheap: I run all my seven web sites from a reseller account for $10 per month. (Also, for the moment, they have some discount coupons available.) SO if you're looking for a web host, check them out.
E-mail Diana HsiehPermaLinkComments (Popup)
BloggerThis
As a Colorado taxpayer, breast cancer survivor and one whose first husband lost a long battle with cancer, I want to say that the state 208 Commission's recent choices of proposals to evaluate all add up to one thing for me: I hope I never have a life-threatening condition again in Colorado if any of these proposals become reality. And I hope that nobody I love has to be subjected to the rationing, waiting and other debilitating results of what they evidently believe are the best of intentions.
Bringing more government involvement into health care "reform" is not a solution. It
is a recipe for disaster. Of the proposals considered, only one reflected my views: the "FAIR" proposal, which has been cast aside. Only by reducing government involvement in health care will we get the kind of justice that will bring about the best care for all at the best possible price. We must remember that health care is not and cannot be free: the skills of doctors, researchers and technology companies must be fairly compensated. The alternative is slavery of the few taxpayers who will foot the huge (unworkable) bills and of the providers of health care who will ultimately leave the profession in order not to be enslaved by it.
This is not regulation on some dispensable part of our lives. This concerns everyone's survival, to some degree; nobody will be untouched by the outcome of this process. We have a lot to lose.
Hannah Krening, Larkspur
Hannah's experience with cancer gives her special credibility in the current healthcare debate in Colorado. Similarly, that Paul is a practicing physician gives his voice tremendous weight. Lin is gaining ever-more traction as a genuine health care policy expert in Colorado, thanks to her diligent study of the nuts and bolts of the subject over the past few months. Brian Schwartz (of WhoOwnsYou.org) has standing in the debate because he submitted a proposal to the 208 Commission.
When Lin began FIRM, I don't think that any of us appreciated the importance of that kind of special credibility. Yet it makes sense: people are more swayed by the opinions of people with experience and expertise than the random opinions of unknown persons.
So in your own activism, don't just rely on your general knowledge of the relevant philosophic principles. That's boring, to both yourself and others. Instead, ask yourself what unique perspective you can contribute to the debate. Focus on the issues (or subissues) in which you have some notable experience or expertise. Appeal to that when you write, as Hannah's letter did. Even if your particular issues or subissues aren't the most exciting or sexy or crucial in the total context, you'll do better in the fight. You'll likely be far more motivated to write and speak at all. And if you speak as someone with some special knowledge, insight, and concern, your words will carry more weight.
So if you're having trouble motivating yourself to write and speak, even though you know that you should fight for the future of this country for your own sake, think about what you as an individual can bring to the debate. I've been struggling with just that kind of inadequate motivation on the health care debate this week, but I know that I'll be excited to jump into the fray once I clearly answer the question of how I can use my expertise as a moral philosopher, as the wife of a physician, as the daughter of a breast cancer survivor, and so on to give myself an angle in the debate. If you're feeling unmotivated, perhaps you might ask yourself the same kind of question.
Thanks to an exclusive permission generously granted by the Estate of Ayn Rand, aynrand.org is now able to offer its registered users, free of charge, an expansive collection of Ayn Rand audio and video recordings. This unprecedented selection includes lectures, interviews, and the complete series of Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum lectures.
On September 12, 2002, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, inaugurated the ARI Lecture Series before a crowd of 600 with a lecture titled "9/11--One Year Later: Why America Is Losing the War!" Since then ARI speakers have delivered about six free public talks per year on topics ranging from ethics to foreign policy to history. As a registered user of aynrand.org, you now have access to the lecture portion of each of these talks. A complete selection of full-length video and audio recordings, including the Q-&-A sessions that followed, is available at the Ayn Rand Bookstore.
The second is cool, but the first is simply awesome. I've listened to most of the recordings of Ayn Rand already. I particularly enjoyed the Ford Hall Forum lectures, for the reasons explained here. Even those well familiar with the in-print Objectivist corpus will likely find interesting tidbits to tweak their brains in these recordings. And, as I said about the Ford Hall Forum lectures, "those who wish for some small first-hand glimpse of the real Ayn Rand, undistorted by ax-grinding critics, will find these lectures to be an invaluable treasure."
208 Farce By Diana Hsieh @ 9:02 PM
Colorado's 208 Commission for Health Care Reform has chosen its four proposals to evaluate. Basically, after a pro-government-medicine biased analysis by some consulting firm, the Commission will recommend one plan to the Colorado legislature. As expected, the selected plans range from awful to disastrous. Lin Zinser has posted a helpful analysis of them to the FIRM blog.
On Sunday, I dashed off the following letter to the commissioners:
Dear 208 Commissioners,
I wish to express my profound disappointment with the Commission's choice of healthcare reform proposals to evaluate. All four proposals are basically the same: all would significantly increase the already-overwhelming burden of government regulations, mandates, and entitlements in medicine. If implemented, the results would be exactly the same as in other countries and states, i.e. runaway costs, rationing of services, and declining quality. The only difference between these four proposals is the speed with which each would destroy the high quality of medical care now available in Colorado.
You could have chosen to give a serious hearing to something genuinely different, namely the free-market approach of Brian Schwartz's "FAIR" proposal. Instead, you've decided that only plans that inject tons more government force into medicine will be considered.
What a farce.
Diana Hsieh Sedalia, CO
Obviously, I cannot hope to change the decision of the Commission at this point, but clear and strong opposition can convey the message that their "idealistic" plans for reform would be serious political risk.
Heartbreak, Part 2 By Diana Hsieh @ 4:51 PM
Last week, Paul and I enjoyed a fantastically difficult five days of single and double track mountain biking around the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. (That's our second trip with Escape Adventures. Paul and I highly recommend them.) We biked over 100 miles, with almost 8000 feet of ascent total. Happily, we were in fine physical shape for the trip. We never wimped out on rides, nor suffered from sore muscles -- although with altitude of 7,000 to 9,000 feet, we were often short of breath on the bigger hills. We didn't suffer any serious injuries, but I took a rather hard spill on the first day due to too-tight clips. After that, I abandoned my clips entirely, as they were simply too difficult to manage on single track for a beginner rider like me.
I do really enjoy these painfully strenuous vacations. Particularly with mountain biking, it's all-too-easy to serious injure yourself if you lose focus for just a few seconds. So these trips really force me to leave all my work behind: whatever I'm not doing doesn't prey on me, as it would if I were trying to do nothing on the beach. (I can't even pack thoughts of work in my brain! No room!) However, I did read the book How to Complete and Survive Your Doctoral Dissertation by David Sternberg while lounging about camp. That was very helpful, since I came back from vacation ready to start my dissertation prospectus. (It's already underway!)
Unfortunately, our otherwise excellent trip was marred by the death of our dog Abby. On Tuesday, she suffered a massive trauma that shattered her femur. We're not sure how it happened, but she might have been trampled by my mare Tara or hit by a car coming up the driveway. She was taken to the Douglas County Animal Hospital by our housesitter Melissa right away, put on IV morphine and other drugs, and evaluated by three vets. (One of those vets was Dr. McVicker, the vet that Abby and I have been seeing every ten days or so for acupuncture for the last seven months. She's grown very attached to Abby.) The vets determined that surgery and recovery would be very difficult even if Abby were fully healthy. However, she was sure not to recover with her degenerative myelopathy. Given her rate of decline from that neurological disease, Abby probably would have been unable to walk in six months, if not sooner. So recovery from such a massive hind-end trauma was just not a realistic option, nor remotely fair to ask of her.
Paul and I got the message about Abby on Wednesday morning. After a painful series of phone calls to determine the facts and make arrangements, I told Dr. McVicker that she should put Abby down that day. Sadly, it would have taken us at least 24 hours to return home. As much as I wanted to see Abby one last time, that was just not humanely possible. She was well-loved by friends at her end though. Dr. McVicker brought her outside on a stretcher for a few last good moments in the sun. Melissa, our long-time housesitter, was able to be with her, and she even brought our other dog Kate.
It has been strange to be home again without her. Paul and I were so far away when she was injured and put down, but we now feel her absence from home constantly. Kate seems to be doing reasonably well, although she's a bit more stuck to me than usual. (Abby was always far more dependent on Kate than vice versa.)
Despite her various doggie flaws, Abby was an excellent dog. She was attentive, loyal, and protective. She was a very happy farm dog. She was a dog of rare quality for trailing riding: even in face of alluring distractions like wiggly wildlife and barking dogs, she remained 100% devoted to quietly following Tara and me on the trail. Most of all though, she was my dog. And I miss her.
Letters to the 208 Commission By Diana Hsieh @ 1:29 PM
Today is the last day for public comment to Colorado's "208 Commission on Health Care Reform." If you're already written, thank you! If you live in Colorado but haven't yet written, please please please do so. You can make a difference! Even just a quick paragraph advocating free market reforms would be fantastic. If you have more than a spare moment to craft a letter, you should look at Lin Zinser's We Stand FIRM blog post about writing the commission. Below, I've included the letters from Lin Zinser, Paul Hsieh, and myself.
From Lin Zinser:
Americans can freely choose where to live and what kind of housing we can afford. We can choose whether to buy a car and, if so, what kind, size and price we want to spend. We can choose what kind of food to eat and whether we want it ready-made, as in restaurants or fast food joints, or whether we want it partially made, or from fresh ingredients -- where we do the preparation. We can choose what kinds of entertainment we seek, including movies, CDs, books, or whether to attend live events like wrestling matches, theater, concerts or the opera. We can choose what kind of work we do, our place of employment, and some can choose what hours to work, and whether to work from home, an office or outdoors. These are among thousands of other choices Americans make in our lives -- and because we live in America we have more choices than most other people in the rest of the world.
We can choose to live simply, without electricity -- as a friend's 93 year old grandmother chooses to do because she thinks simple is better, or with as much technology and space as Bill Gates can buy. We can choose to buy clothes at second hand shops -- as many of my financially well-off girl-friends do, or we can choose to spend hundreds of dollars on a haircut as Presidential Candidate John Edwards does. We can shop for groceries at Walmart, 24 hours a day, or at Whole Foods, where we pay more for organic foods. Our economic choices are not forced on us by our political status or our government.
These are the kinds of choices that people from around the world come to America to experience -- for a lifetime. People from around the world also come to America to get the latest medical technology, the newest life-saving drug, and some of the most radical treatments available, even if incompletely tested or proven -- in order to save their lives.
Think about one astonishing fact -- the people in countries with universal, mandatory health coverage -- including the Europe, Great Britain and Canada -- even if taken together, have not created the wonderful, magnificent changes that we have seen over the past 40 years in medicine in America even though their population is more than 3 times the American population. In most of these countries, such wonderful life saving treatments, even if adopted from America, are restricted or rationed.
Why has America led all of these countries in medical advancements that have enhanced the quality of life of all, including premature infants, people with failing organs, cancer victims and aging Americans? Why is there no rationing in America? Why do people come to this country for advanced treatment s for cancer and other diseases? The answer is Capitalism -- the social, economic and political system which allows men and women to use their minds in freedom, thus providing creators and producers the financial incentive -- the profit motive -- to investigate new (hence unproved and untried) technologies and new science, even at the risk of failure.
Government controlled health insurance and medicine do not foster change and innovation. They foster the status quo. One reason is that any government program, looking at unproved and untried methods or strategies, cannot spend taxpayer dollars on them for political reasons -- the risk is too great. Additionally, Government tends to enforce one standard of doing things -- one way of treatment -- whether it's the post office or health care. It took Fed Ex and UPS to provide choice in how fast a package could be delivered. There is one Medicare part A for all Americans 65 or older. Medicaid participants don't have choices -- they have limited options. But, how many choices do Americans make with regard to food, clothing, housing, transportation and entertainment every day of our lives.
The only reasonable principle for health insurance and medicine is the principle uniquely forged by the founding fathers. It is the principle enshrined by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution -- that all are created equal with the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those inalienable rights require a social-economic-political system that promotes freedom of action -- the freedom that allows Americans to make all of the choices I mentioned -- and more. In Colorado, we need American health insurance and American medicine with its innovation and enhancement of the quality of life -- not another European government program of the status quo.
Here are my responses to the two questions on which you have requested public input, regarding the health care proposals under consideration:
"(1) What are the one or two most important features that you feel must be included in any Colorado health care reform?"
The most important feature would be reduction or elimination of mandates on individuals, insurance companies, and employers. This will allow patients, doctors, and payers to negotiate the best agreements for themselves without being constrained by government force. Mandates on employers and insurance companies (such as mandatory benefit packages, guaranteed issue and/or community ratings) drive up costs without providing better care. Mandates on individuals violate the freedom of contract between patients and their doctors and force one set of patients to subsidize the health care of another set of patients. Individuals can and should be allowed to decide for themselves how to most wisely spend their health care dollars.
"(2) What is the most important principle that should be considered in any reform effort?"
The most important principle is that only free market capitalism can guarantee good quality health care at the lowest prices for patients. Countries and US states in which allocation of health care resources are left to the government inevitably spend more money for poorer-quality care. Plus the decision making become irreversibly politicized, which harms patients who don't have powerful political friends. The free market is the only way to protect the individual rights of patients and doctors. Hence, we must avoid more government mandates, or mandates disguised as limited "choices" within a set of government-selected options.
Patients, providers, and payers working within a free market will come up with innovative and cost-effective solutions that would never occur to central government planners. To deprive patients of that opportunity violates their basic rights and will cause them harm.
Reference: The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care, book by Dr. David Gratzer, a physician who has practiced in both the US and Canada. Among other points, he shows how the government-run medical system results in higher mortality rates for treatable conditions in countries like Canada vs. the USA. Any government-run system of health care will result in more deaths of Colorado patients from to treatable diseases such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, stroke, etc.
Thank you very much, -------------------- Paul Hsieh, MD Sedalia, CO paulhsiehmd@gmail.com
From Diana Hsieh:
Dear 208 Commissioners,
I am writing to encourage you to uphold free market principles in your deliberations about health care reform proposals. A free market in health care -- as opposed to the current system of massive regulations, mandates, and entitlements -- is the only moral and practical option. All the problems from which medicine currently suffers (such as high prices for medical care, non-portable insurance, and the over-use of emergency rooms) stem from government interference in the free market.
Only free markets permit doctors, nurses, and other medical providers to act for the best interests of their patients. Only free markets allow patients to choose how to best spend their hard-earned money to secure and promote their own health. Any other system -- meaning any system with regulations, mandates, and entitlements -- injects bureaucrats into what ought to be wholly private decisions. Patients are told that they must wait months for critical care -- or they are simply denied care altogether. That kind of government meddling is inevitable. When government pays for medical care, neither doctors nor patients have any incentive to use the available medical services judiciously. Then, to prevent total financial ruin from runaway costs (and fraud), the government must step in to limit the use of medical services, whether by rationing care or denying care. Unless the system is scrapped, people will suffer and people will die. That's what the supposedly noble ideal of "universal coverage" means in practice.
The 208 Commission has a wonderful opportunity to help repeal the mandates, regulations, and entitlements that currently burden medical care for the doctors and patients of Colorado. If you do that, you can make Colorado a genuine leader in health care reform!
-- DMH
Diana Hsieh Sedalia, CO
Please feel free to post your letter to the 208 Commission in the comments.
Jamestown: Birthplace of America's Distinctive, Secular Ideal By Eric Daniels
On May 14, America will commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown, Virginia. The occasion provides us with an opportunity to understand and celebrate the distinctive, secular ideal underlying America's freedom and prosperity.
Although many Americans recognize that Jamestown was the first permanent English colony in North America (predating the Pilgrims and Puritans of Massachusetts by over a decade), too many mistakenly view the religious ethos of the New England colonies as the impetus for America's flourishing. But the religious colonists, whose moral outlook stands opposed to our ideals of intellectual and political liberty, merely transplanted Old World ideas to new soil. The New World that promised opportunity and progress had begun in Jamestown, where the defining spirit of American individualism was born.
The Jamestown settlement project began, not as a Puritan escape to pursue and enforce a dogmatic faith, but with a group of profit-seeking investors in London pooling capital in a joint-stock company, a forerunner of our modern corporations. Members of the Virginia Company had organized with the goal of uncovering economic opportunity in North America by finding precious metals and possibly a water route to the Pacific.
The intrepid band of 104 adventurers who survived the Atlantic journey, braved a forbidding wilderness, established Jamestown, and faced extreme peril. In its first fragile decade, Jamestown lost hundreds of settlers to disease, starvation, and war, with casualty rates in one harsh winter reaching 80 percent of the colony. Eventually, under the deft leadership of Captain John Smith, the colony weathered these trials to emerge with renewed resolve. Smith himself had risen from modest circumstances in England to lead these adventurers, and he saw America as a land where his kind of self-reliance could flourish.
Though the Virginia Company found little gold and no sea route to Asia, they soon discovered something vastly more important--that economic opportunity lay wherever men were left free to work and create new wealth. In contrast to the rigid class structure and static economy of Jacobean England, America promised rewards based on individual merit. It was this spirit, and not the Puritan belief in cosmic predestination and unthinking duty to God, that attracted men to pursue their own earthly success in the New World.
"Here every man may be master and owner of his own labor and land," Smith noted in one of his many promotional books intended to attract new settlers to America. "If he have nothing but his hands," he boasted, "he may set up his trade, and by industry quickly grow rich." For Smith and the other early settlers of Jamestown, the profound significance of America lay in the possibility that a man could choose, pursue, and realize his own destiny--it lay in a new ideal of individual liberty.
By the late eighteenth century, under the growing influence of that ideal, the colonists began to resist and protest against British imperial controls on their economic and political freedom, which led to the American Revolution. In framing our constitutional government, the Founders put individualism into political practice by protecting individual rights against the claims of any cleric, monarch, or legislative majority. The new nation's founding ideals had emerged in opposition to the religious morality that entailed obedience to Biblical teachings and authority, conformity to the group, and condemnation of worldliness and material success.
Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the individualist spirit born in Jamestown brought countless millions to America, each looking to create a better life for himself. Through the years, that spirit has fostered untold prosperity by encouraging self-reliant innovators like Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie, or James J. Hill. Its legacy lives on in America today, in anyone who believes that each individual owns his own life and has an inalienable right to pursue his own happiness.
In the centuries since Jamestown, America has thrived because of this distinctive ideal--an ideal in marked contrast not only to America's religious colonies but also to the rest of the world today, where duty to the group or to divine command still subjugates millions.
Americans should pause to celebrate the full significance of the Jamestown anniversary as an opportunity to appreciate and rededicate themselves to America's noble spirit of individualism. Doing so will help remind us of the need to defend this value from those who would compromise or attack it. Doing any less would be an act of injustice to those brave men who helped to shape our most important institutions.
Eric Daniels, PhD, is a Visiting Scholar at the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism at Clemson University, and a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.
Taking Prayer Seriously By Diana Hsieh @ 8:12 AM
If you're not of strong mind and body, you might wish to skip these May 3rd remarks by President Bush on our "National Day of Prayer":
As Shirley mentioned, since the days of our founding, our nation has been called to prayer. That's exactly what our first President did, George Washington. "It's the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and to humbly implore his protection and favor." It's interesting that the first President said those words.
For two centuries, Americans have answered this call to prayer. We're a prayerful nation. I believe that makes us a strong nation. Each day, millions of our citizens approach our Maker. We pray as congregations in churches and in synagogues, and mosques, and in temples. We welcome people of all faiths into the United States of America.
We pray as families, around the dinner table, and before we go to sleep. We pray alone in silence and solitude, withdrawing from the world to focus on the eternal, spending time in personal recollection with our Creator.
We pray for many reasons. First, we pray to give thanks for the blessings the Almighty has bestowed upon us. We pray to give thanks. We give thanks for our freedom. We give thanks for the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend it. We give thanks for our families who love and support us. We give thanks for our plenty. We give thanks for our nation.
Second, we pray for the strength to follow God's will in our lives, and for forgiveness when we fail to do so. Through prayer, each of us is reminded that we are fallen creatures in need of mercy, and in seeking the mercy and compassion of a loving God, we grow in mercy and compassion ourselves.
We feel the tug at our souls to reach out to the poor, the elderly, the stranger in distress. And by answering this call to care for our brothers and sisters in need, our hearts grow larger and we enter into a deeper relationship with God.
Third, we pray to acknowledge God's sovereignty in our lives and our complete dependence on Him. This is probably the toughest prayer of all, particularly for those of us in politics. In the humility of prayer we recognize the limits of human strength and human wisdom. We seek the strength and wisdom that comes from above. We ask for the grace to align our hearts with His, echoing the words of Scripture, "Not my will, but thine be done." We ask the Almighty to remain near to us and guide us in all we do, and when He is near we are ready for all that may come to us.
Finally, we pray to offer petitions, because our Father in heaven knows our cares and our needs. We trust in the promise of a loving God: Ask and it shall be given to you; seek and ye shall find. Inspired by this confidence we pray that the Almighty will pour out His blessings on those we love. We ask His healing for those who suffer from illness, for those who struggle in life. We ask His comfort for the victims of tragedy, and that the injured may be healed and the fallen may find comfort in the arms of their Creator. We implore His protection for those who protect us here at home and in far away lands. We pray for the day when His peace will reign in every nation and in every land until the ends of the earth.
The greatest gift we can offer anyone is the gift of our prayers, because our prayers have power beyond our imagining. The English poet Tennyson wrote, "More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of." Prayer has the power to change lives and to change the course of history. So on this National Day of Prayer, let us seek the Almighty with confidence and trust, because our Eternal Father inclines his ear to the voice of his children, and answers our needs with love.
May God bless America. (Applause.)
Isn't it comforting to know that the leader of our nation and of the free world is guided by thought-beams to and from his imaginary god? Seriously, I'm flabbergasted that modern people who drive cars, listen to iPods, and send e-mail actually take prayer seriously as a real means of changing the world. Yet it's undeniable that they do.
Perhaps because my childhood was 99.9% devoid of religion, that was a fairly recent discovery for me. It wasn't even a serious possibility to me until I read the booklet "30 Days Muslim Prayer Focus" last fall. (I acquired that when I attended Sunday services at the evangelical "Faith Bible Chapel" megachurch.) Each page of the book gives a few paragraphs of information on the religion of some country, with specific recommendations for prayers at the bottom. For example, the page on Syria recommends:
Pray for the publishing and distribution of relevant evangelistic materials, and for the provision of finances to fund these materials.
Pray for minority groups, such as the Alawites, Druze, Shiites, and Yazidis, to be reached with the Gospel.
Syria has been in an economic slump for about six years. Pray for the poor, that God would provide for their needs, and also open doors for them to hear the Good News.
There have been many reforms under the new President, Dr Bashar al-Assad. Pray that there would be further modernization and true religious freedom. (Currently, those who are born into Muslim families may not legally change their religion.)
Many churches are afraid of Muslim-background believers and do not want them to come into their churches, fearing that they are spies or that they want to marry a Christian girl. This is a difficult problem which does not have simple answers. The Apostle Paul had a somewhat similar experience (Acts 9:10-16). Pray for Muslims who trust Christ to be able to find fellowship with others of similar background within their cultural context.
There are few Muslim-background believers in Christ. Pray that each one could remain firmly in their cultural context, and would be used to win their friends and family.
Each January a large Pastors conference takes place in Kinshasa, the capital. Pray that the pastors will continue in the unity of Christ for the good of the country and outreach to the Muslims.
A constant prayer request from the Pastors conference is for Bibles! Pray that bible organizations would hear and that large shipments of French bibles would come to the Congo. Pray too that corrupt customs officials would allow the bibles into DRC without exacting any tolls or bribes.
The theft of resources continues, while Congo still lacks the infrastructure to provide its people with food, clean water, health care and education. Pastors desperately want to help practically as well.
In the Congo, rape is a cheaper weapon of war than bullets, also among Muslims. Pray that young women will not associate this horror with "Christian" Rebels.
Church radio networks are growing, but the state-controlled broadcasting network has the greatest reach. Pray that church radio would increase without denominational competition and that state broadcasting would use Christian content.
These prayers are thoroughly religious. The sole overarching goal is to win more converts for Christ, not to solve any real-life, this-worldly problems, not even serious ones like repression, rape, and corruption. In other words, these prayers are not like those of a desperate kid who wants to do well on an upcoming exam or a distraught wife of a soldier who wants her husband to come home safely. These prayers are serious devotions to Christ, performed with full belief in their power to physically change the world, with the sole aim of winning more devoted converts to Christianity. In the modern age, that's damn scary.
John Allison, CEO of BB&T Bank, lays out his business philosophy arguing for the virtues of profits, self-interest and production. His definition of justice, one of the core values of his firm, is that those who produce more, get more. He argues that Bill Gates would do more for the world improving Microsoft than running his foundation and giving away money. Allison praises Atlas Shrugged and refuses to let his bank make loans to companies that use eminent domain to acquire property. Is this any way to run a company? Does Allison really run his company this way? How does he deal with the gap between his philosophy and our popular culture's view of business and profits? Listen as Allison and host Russ Roberts discuss BB&T's unusual business strategy.
Between now and Saturday, May 12, 2007, is the only real opportunity to voice your concerns to the 208 Commission through the public comment. After May 12, there is no opportunity for public comment before they select the 3 to 5 proposals, which they will do at public hearings on May 17 and May 18. These 3 to 5 proposals will be the ones submitted to the state legislature next January for its consideration. This means that you and your voice could be heard by the legislature through the commission.
There are currently 11 proposals being considered. I have summarized the 11 proposals briefly below -- at the end of this post.
Only one of the proposals recommends deregulation of the insurance market and of Medicaid. That proposal was submitted by Brian Schwartz, PhD, and his full proposal (worth reading) is called FAIR (Free Markets, Affordability and Individual Rights). (You must download it - it's toward the bottom of the page).
The Commission numbered each tendered proposal -- and the FAIR plan is number 21. The other plans include individual mandates, insurance company benefit mandates, insurance company guaranteed issue and community rating mandates, employer mandates, provider mandates, or some combination of the above. My summary of all eleven is provided at the end of this post. The Commission is requesting comment on 2 issues related to these proposals:
1) What are the one or two most important features that you feel must be included in any Colorado health care reform? 2) What is the most important principle that should be considered in any reform effort?
There are two ways to provide comment to the 208 Commission. 1) You may submit a comment in writing by e-mail to 208Commission@coloradofoundation.org It is crucial to send your comments this way.Any comment sent to this address will be posted on the Commission website and distributed to all Commissionersfor review in advance of the May 17-18 meeting. But the e-mail must be received by May 12.Comments sent to individual commissioners, or received after the deadline will be ignored.
Alternatively, there are five meetings planned across the state this week -- May 10 and May 12 -- for public comment and where you have the opportunity to speak before one or more commissioners. They still want you to submit written testimony at the time of your oral presentation.
This is the last opportunity to express your opinion about the most important principle (and features) to be used to select any proposal. This is the timeto speak about capitalism v. government control, the individual rights of doctors and other providers v. the needs of some patients, and freedom in medicine and health insurance v. insurance mandates and other instances of government force.
To be effective to the Commission, any written (or oral) comments must state specifically ONLY the principle and or features that are most important to health care reform, and to give specific reasons for that choice.They are not interested in your advocacy or rejection of any particular proposal.
Some examples of written comments to the 208 Commission might be
The most important feature to include in any health care reform would be to eliminate all mandates -- whether they require individuals or employers to purchase health insurance, or whether they impose benefit packages on insurance companies, or impose mandatory guaranteed issue and/or community ratings of insurance companies; or any mandate on the care or treatment (including the cost for that care) provided by any health care provider. Mandates violate the freedom of contract between individuals, doctors and insurers. They also increase the cost of health insurance policies for the healthier citizens by subsidizing the cost of those who are not as healthy. OR,
The most important principle to consider in any health care reform would be that only capitalism can provide the best quality of medicine and health insurance at the lowest possible price. For example, the United States leads the world in innovative, new science and technology in medicine because of its tendency towards market based solutions, not in spite of them. Government controlled medicine and insurance advocate the status quo, and are resistant to change. To continue to have better and better technology to save more premature births, to enhance the quality of the lives of diabetics, heart patients, cancer victims old age survivors, as well as countless other conditions, we must turn to capitalism and capitalism alone, for its infinite choices and solutions, made by individuals in a free market. OR,
The most important principle to consider is that government involvement in medicine has caused the problems we face in health care today and we need to get government out of medicine. For example, the 1942 IRS ruling distorted the market to favor employer-purchased health insurance policies over individual purchased ones, thus taking the responsibility for the purchase of health insurance from the individual, eliminating portability, transparency of the costs of medical services and health insurance, and encouraging too much coverage for routine care, while discouraging catastrophic care coverage. Another example is EMT ALA, which required all hospitals with emergency rooms (and their doctors) to treat any person, regardless of ability to pay, who believed they had an emergent health issue. This caused doctors and hospitals to treat some people, while getting paid nothing. This in turn caused hospitals and doctors to charge others who could pay more, and caused some hospitals and doctors to stop providing care -- to close emergency rooms and to stop practicing at hospitals with emergency rooms. We need to eliminate provider mandates. OR,
The most important principle of any health care reform would be respecting individual rights of doctors, insurers, employers and individuals. Doctors and hospitals must be free of mandates that require them to participate in any program (e.g., EMT ALA). Insurers must be free to contract and provide whatever benefits they deem profitable or appropriate (eliminate all mandates including mandatory guaranteed issue and community rating). Employers and individuals must be free to purchase health insurance at whatever level they deem appropriate (e.g., high deductible - HSA, basic minimum, catastrophic only, etc.). No one has a right to force others to provide him or her health care or health insurance -- even though many governments have treated both as temporary privileges -- granting benefits which it can then take away depending on cost, majority vote, or other illusory standard
Again, these are examples. The crucial thing is to pick the most important principle for health care reform, or one or two features that are important to consider in health care reform, and make them your own. Feel free to use any of these, expanding or narrowing them to suit your situation. There are many more specific examples for any principle or feature that could be used.
NOW IS THE TIME to send your comments to the 208 Commission. The Commissioners need to understand what is important to you, what principles are crucial to you and how those principles are manifested in features of the various proposals.
To assist you in understanding the essential features of all eleven plans being considered for submission to the legislature, I have summarized them below. You may read the full proposals at the 208 Commmission website by downloading any or all from this page. I used the commission number for each plan. These 11 proposals are as follows:
#21 – FAIR (Free Markets, Affordability and Individual Rights) proposed by Brian Schwartz, PHD. Plan proposes to lower cost of health insurance by eliminating all insurance benefit mandates, thus allowing people to obtain less coverage for fewer dollars. Eliminates single-group of one which eliminate guaranteed issue and community rating for that market. Seeks to encourage high deductible HSA health insurance plans.
Medicaid Reform seeks to transfer more enrollees into private insurance market. It also uses cost-sharing to eliminate over-consumption of some Medicaid services. He also advocates reduction of asset sheltering for long term care in Medicaid. He also advocates increasing access to home care and, most provocatively, to allow Medicaid to compete for funding with voluntary charities in the private market.
#16 -- The Colorado Health Services Program, proposed by Health Care for All Colorado Coalition – is a single payer, publicly financed program. It covers all primary, preventive, specialty, surgical care, automobile and work-related injuries, prescription drugs, mental health services, chiropractic, dental, basic vision, audiology, home health and hospice services, among others. It states that all providers and hospitals will be paid the same for the same level of service, thus eliminating the drive for profit in determining the quality of care. It is explicitly egalitarian and states that every resident has equal access to program benefits. There is no opt-out provision.
It calls for a statewide, fully integrated information technology network to track outcomes, utilization and expenditures. Removes profit motive from financing resulting in a truly egalitarian health care system. Would create the Colorado Health Services: a non-profit government "insurance company," administered and governed as a public utility with five districts and it would be strictly regulatory - no outside supervision or control. All of its decisions final. It would also determine malpractice, but allow its findings to be public in malpractice litigation in a court of law.
#12 – A Plan for Covering Colorado, proposed by the Committee for Colorado Health Care Solutions – requires a single insurance pool – in which all insurers would be required to participate and would be mandatory guaranteed issue and community rated. All individuals, including all state employees, and employers will be mandated to purchase insurance through the single pool. Employers would be mandated to pay a portion of the employees' health insurance or pay an assessment to the state per employee. Individuals (and employers) would be limited to opt for one of 6 to 10 standardized benefit plans. Policy mandates would include a list of essential services, but could include options of type (PPO or HMO), choice of provider panels, and amounts of co-pays or deductibles allowed. Employers required to allow workers to pay their share of premium through payroll deduction. So employers become the enforcement mechanism -- they collect the premium and forward to the state.
This single insurance pool wold be administered by new public authority – Colorado Health Insurance Purchasing Authority. It will define benefit packages, define and periodically update a standard set of benefits based on effectiveness and cost, define and certify “high-value" providers, define subsidy and premium assistance requirements to be provided to low to middle income individuals. Consumers with premium assistance can opt for only 2 plans, with one an HMO. Authority will also decide guidelines for performance of providers, and of course, determine the amounts paid to the providers.
#11 – Community of Caring proposed by a coalition of CCHN, CCC, CA and CBHC. Individuals have mandate to purchase adequate health insurance; there is also an employer mandate to contribute to employee coverage; Insurers must guarantee insurance regardless of health according to community rating. The plan will provide subsidies to low-income and small businesses and expand Medicaid to more people. Benefits will include preventive care, routine medical services, maternity, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, emergency care, outpatient surgery, mental health and substance abuse treatment, physical, occupational and speech therapies; in-home, hospice, and nursing facility care; durable medical equipment and pharmacy, plus oral health benefits.
Creates a quasi-governmental entity that is exempt from TABOR called Health Insurance Partnership. Also creates and funds the Community of Caring Collaborative Board and the Safety Net Stabilization Program. It will establish comprehensive benefits package, competitively negotiate contracts with private health plans; implement quality standards for insurers and providers; and collect taxes from individuals and employers for the program, and collect monies from state agencies and premiums from health insurers for more funding. It says it will provide a variety of products that modify cost sharing or offer enhanced benefits.
#10 – Healthy Colorado Now – proposed by the Colorado Coalition for the Medically Underserved. Employer Mandated on pay or play basis, which means that employers must pay for insurance or pay an assessment per employee to the state. Policies are guaranteed issue, community rated, standard benefits. There will be a default enrollment system with individual mandates, but the employer is ultimately responsible if the individual doesn't purchase insurance. Benefits will exclude services without proven benefits or with poor cost benefit ratios, so no experimentation or new technologies can be tested or tried. There will be spending caps per individual beneficiary. There will also be a limitation of expensive and heroic services.
Creates the Personal Responsibility Option in Colorado (PRO-CO). Governed by non-profit, non-governmental authority called the Colorado Health Authority. Adopt "medical home" standards, which mandates that every individual must choose a primary care physican who then becomes a gate keeper for specialty services. The plan supposedly creates incentives for standardized care. It will implement new information technology, define standard policy benefits, and provide quality and performance standards. Every non-ERISA insurer must offer at least the PRO-CO benefit package. Individuals do have the option to buy higher levels of coverage. Evidence based medicine.
#9 – An Individual Based Insurance System proposed by the South Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. Individual and Insurance Company mandates. Mandatory maintenance routine care policies (up to $100,000) and mandatory preventive care (required to get annual exam). Guaranteed issue, community rating. Catastrophic care funded by 5 to 20% of maintenance policy premiums – with financial backing of the pool from a state governmental safety net similar to the role of the FDIC. Mandated benefits on maintenance policies – may limit benefits on cosmetic, self-inflicted, treatment without a reasonable scientific basis, highly experimental, infertility and repetitive injuries caused by extreme choices.
Creates Colorado Health Commission to investigate quality and cost factors that "drive" cost and quality. Discounts for health lifestyle choices. Massachusetts style connector to link insurers and consumers. Vouchers for poor. State clinics for poor and uninsured – one per county.
#7 – Connecting Care and Health for Colorado proposed by CCHI. Universal coverage. Individual and employer mandates. Guaranteed Issue and Community rating. Expansion of public programs. Standardized benefits, including minimum benefit requirement. Diagnosis and treatment, preventive dental care, vision and hearing services, mental health, substance abuse, cancer screenings and other chronic disease screenings, rehab services, non-emergent medical transportation and other appropriate services.
Creates the Stakeholder Oversight Commission to supervise 3 advisory committees – health care quality, rural health and health disparities. Private insurance includes all state mandated benefits and two or three enhanced plans that include vision and dental benefits. Tax assessment on employers with tax credit for those who provide health insurance. Mandate all residents to purchase insurance.
#6 – A Phased Approach to Achieving Universal Health Coverage in Colorado proposed by Kaiser Permanente. Expand Medicaid programs to children with premium assistance. Individual mandates such that an individual must have coverage through their employer, individually private coverage or through a public program. There will be a tax and surcharge on those who remain uninsured. Guaranteed issue, community rating. Would increase and encourage the use of HMOs. A medical home or primary physician essential. Evidence based guidelines. Statewide medical records database.
Uses voluntary HMOs and providers; but also a statewide managed indemnity plan mandated for those not in HMO. Individuals in indemnity plan must choose primary care physician – a medical home. Reimbursement rate is 100% of medicare for non-HMO providers, HMO rates are reimbursed on a capitated basis and determined at the state level. Individuals eligible for group plan must use that plan. Basic or comprehensive plan with a deductible (0, $2000 or $10,000).
#4 – Comprehensive Health Care Plan for Colorado proposed by CLUB 20. Individual mandates for tier 1 coverage – basic benefits using appropriate associated reimbursement rates using Oregon as model. Providers mandated to participate in quality improvement efforts and meet quality standards.
It would create Colorado Health Commission to coordinate and direct new overarching elements of health care reform. Also would create the Colorado Care Connector to assume role of current medical and efficiently provide Tier 1 coverage to those who can’t afford it. Promote concept of medical home with primary care provider. Can purchase Tier 2 coverage – which allows for unlimited health care options.
#2 – Better Health Care for Colorado proposed by Service Employees International Union. This plan is a bit vague but seeks to create a path for universal health coverage. It doesn't appear to have mandates, but I'm not sure how universal coverage is to be enforced without mandates.
It would create a new quasi-public entity to provide access to private insurance specifically tailored for "target" populations. The exchange would coordinate health care financing from multiple sources, and offer products to subsidized uninsured and non-subsidized small businesses. Would offer limited health plan of $25,000 to $35,000 annual benefit; pre-paid plan; more comprehensive coverage such as in the State Employee Health Insurance Plan, and other plans for indigent or high risks. Managed care approach. Would have employer-sponsored insurance with an opt-out provision.
Updates By Diana Hsieh @ 7:54 AM
I've just updated the main page of DianaHsieh.com with the graduate papers that I've written over the last year. If you're interested, feel free to take a peek at them:
Stillborn Ends – Paper for Contemporary Moral Theories (Ben Hale, Spring 2006) on the major defects in David Schmidtz's attempt to ground final ends in "maieutic ends." Completed on 3 May 2007. 5663 words.
Descartes and Newton on Body – Paper for Medieval Origins of Modern Philosophy (Robert Pasnau, Spring 2006) on Descartes' account of the nature of body and Newton's criticisms thereof. Completed on 15 April 2007. 6660 words.
Locke on Human Action – Paper for Locke (Dan Kaufman, Fall 2004) on Locke's mechanistic theory of the generation of human action. Completed on 14 March 2007. 67
Under current copyright law, fashion designs can't be copyrighted. This is why it's possible for stores to sell "knock-offs" of original designs. Of course, a replica maker isn't allowed to put trademarked labels on the new works, but the details of the design (such as a novel shape of skirt or a jacket tail) can be freely copied without penalty.
E-mail Paul
PermaLink
Comments (Popup)
BloggerThis
