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

Wednesday, October 31, 2007 New Joss Whedon Series By Diana Hsieh @ 9:04 PM Joss has a new TV series forthcoming: The Dollhouse. Here's the basic scoop: Whedon's new Fox series, called Dollhouse, stars Miss Eliza Dushku, best known as Faith to you Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans. And, this show isn't just a pilot. It's already been given a seven-episode commitment by Fox. Whoo! The series, according to Fox, is about "Echo (Eliza Dushku), a young woman who is literally everybody's fantasy. She is one of a group of men and women who can be imprinted with personality packages, including memories, skills, language—even muscle memory—for different assignments. The assignments can be romantic, adventurous, outlandish, uplifting, sexual and/or very illegal. When not imprinted with a personality package, Echo and the others are basically mind-wiped, living like children in a futuristic dorm/lab dubbed the Dollhouse, with no memory of their assignments—or of much else. The show revolves around the childlike Echo's burgeoning self-awareness, and her desire to know who she was before, a desire that begins to seep into her various imprinted personalities and puts her in danger both in the field and in the closely monitored confines of the Dollhouse." Woooohoooo! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Jarhead By Diana Hsieh @ 2:51 PM I'm still sick, so I've not yet returned to work. That's why I watched the movie Jarhead this afternoon. I wasn't expecting much from it, as I recalled Nick Provenzo's negative comments on it. While I didn't expect the movie to be heroic, I didn't expect it to be so completely pointless. In fact, its rambling-to-nowhere was its only point. As Nick says, The fundamental theme of Jarhead's portrayal of Marine life is that heroes do not exist. One cannot depict the Marine Corps accurately without noting that at least some of its members perform feats of strength, endurance and bravery, and that to build an entire institution of such men, certain virtues are required. Yet like Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket," a movie acclaimed for its supposed depiction of Viet Nam-era marines, none of these men and certainly none of these virtues are to be found. Instead, what one finds in Jarhead are empty men who drift though life, denied of what they truly want, and who choose to make up for it in emotional outbursts and sadistic and debased pleasures. Yup. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Affirmative Action Debate By Diana Hsieh @ 10:00 AM On the evening of November 5th, the L.O.G.I.C. (the UCLA Objectivist Club) will be hosting a debate on affirmative action featuring Ward Connerly, Richard Sander, and Peter Schwartz. More details can be found on the club's web site. Update: Paul posted the following in the comments: The affirmative action issue is a good example where a single person can create significant positive political and cultural change. Ward Connerly's tireless efforts to eliminate race-based admissions in the University of California system seemed doomed to failure in the mid-1990s, especially given the liberal mindset of California in general and of the academicians in particular. And his initial efforts did fail. But he persisted, and as a result there have been significant changes in the university admissions policies in California, Texas, Florida, and Michigan. The battle is not over by any means, but a single person armed with clear rational convictions can and has made a tremendous difference in framing the terms of the debate and moving important parts of the culture in the right direction. I like to cite this issue as an real-life example whenever I am faced with gloom-and-doom Objectivists who say that "socialized medicine is inevitable" or "this country is going to the sewer and there's nothing we can do about it". Of course it's irrational to take a pollyanna-ish approach (e.g., "Objectivism is automatically going to win because the ideas are correct and in accordance with reality"), just as it's irrational to take a doom-and-gloom approach ("Objectivism will never win because the forces of irrationality are too powerful"). But if Objectivists are willing to work in their self-interest to advocate good ideas in the appropriate time and fashion, then I believe there is reason for rational optimism. In particular, I wholeheartedly agree with some of the folks at the ARI who think that Objectivists should be spending less time arguing minutia amongst themselves in internet Objectivist online forums and instead should be willing to go onto mainstream forums, blog comment boards, etc., and post their ideas to the wider world. Planting philosophical seeds in support of reason, ethical egoism, individual rights, and capitalism can bear fruit in surprising places. These comments don't need to be long essays - just a couple of short polite sentences stating ones views (perhaps with links to more detailed arguments on the ARI or other Objectivist websites) could suffice, depending on one's comfort level with writing. This is not to disparage Objectivist online forums per se. Those can be good places to discuss ideas in a friendly setting. But what I am criticizing is the kind of person who spends disproportionate intellectual effort engaging in pointless discussions of Objectivist hair-splitting in an insular setting, rather than taking up the more significant challenge of advocating his ideas in a constructive fashion to the rest of the non-Objectivist world. In that way, it's no different from hearing someone at work saying, "Shouldn't the government guarantee health care as a right for everyone?", then being willing to respond with something like, "Actually that would be a terrible idea; that would turn doctors and nurses into slaves, and screw over honest, responsible patients as well." Labels: Announcements E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, October 30, 2007 Dressage Humor By Diana Hsieh @ 7:28 PM Yup, the best horse in Europe: E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Book Recommendation Wanted By Diana Hsieh @ 11:06 AM I recently received this e-mail from Jason Head: I am a daily reader of your blog and have been for several years. My question is not philosophical, but I believe that you or your readers may be able to lead me in the right direction. I am looking for an economics and/or investing book which explains in laymen terms what the Federal Reserve does, what it purports to do, and the actual consequences of its actions from a free market perspective. Do you or your loyal readers have any suggestions for reading on this topic? I know almost nothing about the Fed. Does anyone have any suggestions? (Disloyal readers are welcome to chime in too.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, October 29, 2007 The State of Evangelical Politics By Diana Hsieh @ 8:44 AM This lengthy New York Times article on the state of political activism amongst evangelical Christians was fascinating. Two comments: (1) I'm not surprised to hear more about the recent leanings of evangelicals toward the socialism and environmentalism of the Democrats. Socialism is, after all, better supported by Christian scripture than opposition to abortion. So evangelicals will likely be actively courted by both political parties for the foreseeable future. All that can be hoped for is some kind of secular candidate in the 2008 presidential election, since voting for a left-wing theocrat (e.g. Obama) over a right-wing theocrat (e.g. Huckabee) would be futile. (2) The source of the disillusionment with Bush's Iraq War among evangelicals is instructive: the problem is that the war is not altruistic enough. That new-found Christian pacifism will not only preclude any fight against our enemies abroad but also invigorate entitlements for the needy at home. That's bad all around. Much more could be said about the article, but I'm still too sick for much heavy thinking. Labels: Religion E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, October 28, 2007 Mr. Deity, Season Two By Diana Hsieh @ 1:19 PM In a brand-new episode, Mr. Deity concretizes President Bush's conversations with God. (Via Adam Mossoff.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, October 27, 2007 Sick Sick Sick, Movie Movie By Diana Hsieh @ 5:59 PM I'm horribly, miserably sick today with some kind of head cold. It has been coming on since Tuesday morning, but I staved it off until Friday afternoon. (My mom was visiting until then, so I was determined not to be sick.) So I just had a bit of a sore throat, scratchy voice, and hugely swollen lymph nodes until yesterday. Then I began to enjoy the distinct pleasures of a stuffy nose and total exhaustion. So now I'm miserable. I'm also bored out of my tree, as I can't do any thinking in my condition. I've cleaned out all the backlogged episodes of The Dog Whisperer from my TiVo. (I do enjoy the show, but not all day long!) I also watched M. Night Shyamalan's The Village. I can't say much about it without giving away the plot, but I did enjoy it despite the theme. It wasn't nearly as well done as Signs though. (That was stellar art in the service of a totally corrupt theme.) Also, on Thursday evening, we watched The Lives of Others. It's a German movie about life before the fall of the Berlin Wall. It's fantastic; I cannot recommend it enough. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Kant, Savior of Religion By Diana Hsieh @ 8:20 AM ICK: Religion has faced formidable foes in its history. But atheism hasn't generally been one of them -- until today. A recent string of bestselling books has put believers of all stripes on the defensive. Religion, say authors such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens, is an unreasonable form of blind faith, often leading to fanaticism and violence. Reason and science, they contend, are the only proper foundations for forming opinions and understanding the universe. Those who believe in God, they insist, are falling for silly superstitions. This atheist attack is based on a fallacy -- the Fallacy of the Enlightenment. It was pointed out by the great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant erected a sturdy intellectual bulwark against atheism that hasn't been breached since. His defense doesn't draw on sacred texts or any other sources of authority to which people of faith might naturally and rightfully turn when confronted with atheist arguments. Instead, it relies on the only framework that today's atheist proselytizers say is valid: reason. The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know -- reality itself. This view says we can find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover. It holds that human reason and science can, in principle, unmask the whole of reality. That's from Dinesh D'Souza, unsurprisingly. He's the author of the just-published book, What's So Great About Christianity. (Yes, I do plan to read it.) E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, October 26, 2007 Ayn Rand Lexicon Online By Diana Hsieh @ 5:42 PM Cool: The Ayn Rand Lexicon is now available on the web at www.aynrandlexicon.com. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis American Belief in the Supernatural By Paul @ 8:25 AM According to this recent survey, nearly 1/3rd of Americans believe in ghosts and 23% believe they've personally seen or felt the presence of one. Also, "About one out of five people, 19 percent, say they accept the existence of spells or witchcraft. Nearly half, 48 percent, believe in extrasensory perception, or ESP." For those who wish to promote a culture of rationality, this means there's a significant "market opportunity"! E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, October 25, 2007 The First Mobile Phone By Paul @ 7:15 AM It's easy to forget how quickly technology can advance. But stories like this help remind us of the power of the human mind: Motorola's DynaTAC (Dynamic Adaptive Total Area Coverage) 8000X was the world's first commercially released mobile phone -- making its debut in 1983 at the price of $3,995. The company spent over $100-million and 15 years developing the technology. At 13 x 1.75 x 3.5 in., the DynaTAC 8000X featured an LED display and up to 30-minutes of talk time when fully charged. It was available in three different color combinations, which included tan/gray, tan, and dark gray. E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, October 24, 2007 Invitation to The Objectivism Seminar By Greg @ 8:46 AM Truly living well calls for engaging fundamental philosophical ideas and integrating their use into our everyday lives, our everyday actions, our way of being—into our souls. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to get busy with all the urgent things around us, and we can drift, distracted and disintegrated. For those of us who want an ongoing practice in such engagement (and those who want to explore the need for that in the first place), I have created The Objectivism Seminar. The Objectivism Seminar is a weekly online conference call to systematically work through the philosophy of Ayn Rand via the books of prominent Rand scholars. These moderated, one-hour sessions will be recorded and podcast to allow review, catch-up, and even disconnected participation. The idea is to give people—new and experienced alike—a forum to chew through key Objectivist works and tour the complete system, further clarifying, integrating, and grounding their grasp of the ideas. Because it is an ongoing seminar, we will have incentive to keep up with the steady schedule of study and stay equipped to consider fresh angles, concretizations, challenges, and applications from other participants. And because life is so full for many of us, I am purposefully keeping the reading load light and the method of participation unobtrusive. The plan is that we will spend almost as much time discussing the ideas as reading about them. Study like this is productive for both experienced students of Objectivism and those new to Rand's ideas: I've read all of these books, some several times, and I would expect to get at least as much out of this as someone going through them for the first time. If you are interested, please look over the FAQ below and head over to www.ObjectivismSeminar.com to sign up! Pass the word, Greg The Objectivism Seminar FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) Q: What is The Objectivism Seminar? A: The Objectivism Seminar is a weekly online conference call to systematically work through the philosophy of Ayn Rand via the books of prominent Rand scholars. These moderated one-hour sessions will be recorded and podcast to allow review, catch-up, and even disconnected participation. Q: How much does it cost? A: The cost is $15 per person per book to participate in or access the recordings of the sessions (and it is refundable in full for any reason whatsoever in your first five sessions). But Objectivist luminaries who have or might produce the sorts of substantive books, articles, and lectures we are studying are only allowed to participate for free. ;^) Q: Do I have to be an Objectivist to participate? A: No. The purpose of the seminar is to give people a means to critically engage Objectivism and improve their understanding of the philosophy. Anybody who is polite and honest in this effort is welcome; anybody who disrupts others in that endeavor is not. (The process of examining ideas can be challenging enough that we certainly don't need to have someone being rude or beating us up psychologically while we do it!) Q: What are the books we'll be working through? A: Here are the books and the order in which we'll study them: Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Dr. Tara Smith Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Dr. Leonard Peikoff Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand (to be determined) Q: How much material will we cover per week? (How heavy is the work load?) A: We all have busy lives, so this is designed to be a slow-and-steady project. I hope we can work through a chapter every two weeks, but depending on the material and peoples' needs and interests, that will vary. In raw numbers, the expected load will be an average of 15 pages of reading and one hour of discussion per week. Q: When, where, and how do we meet? A: Sunday evenings 7:30-9:00 Mountain, we'll meet in an online conference call so people from anywhere can join in. For those who miss a meeting (and those who want to join in halfway through a book), we'll have recordings of the sessions archived on the www.ObjectivismSeminar.com website. The website will also host links to any diagrams drawn in the sessions, and there will be a discussion forum where people can work out issues during the week to bring to the sessions. Q: What tools will I need? A: [See the website for the current online tools that are needed.] Q: Conference calls can be pretty chaotic and noisy, especially if you have a lot of people on the line... A: These will not be anything-goes bull sessions—I will moderate the sessions to keep us on track with the agenda and in alignment with the purpose of the seminar. And we'll try to hold the conference call noise and conversational chaos to a minimum by keeping everybody muted except for those actively talking. Our Group Chat will allow anyone to signal that they would like to speak (and by giving a hint of what they want to talk about, they'll also help make the session more focused and productive). Q: What will the structure of the sessions be like? A: We'll always be trying to improve how we run things, but let's begin with this basic plan: Up to 5 or 10 minutes of follow-up discussion around any past material (good for raising that issue that hit you in the shower after the previous week's discussion, as well as a chance for those who participate by only listening to the podcasts to raise their issues for comment via email to the moderator). Introduction of the current material with the leader's quick sketch of the highlights (good for reminding people of the scope of the discussion and prompting their observations, questions, etc.). Extended discussion of the current material, with people 'raising hands' to be unmuted (the Chat lets participants give a hint of what they want to raise or follow up on, as well as to second what someone else wants to raise, both of which will let the leader better organize the session). The leader will usually address what is raised, but may also defer to others who can better address it, further clarify what has already been said, or (best of all) correct a confused response. Q: How did you select the books and their order? A: The goal is to work through the entire system, and Peikoff's book is the definitive single-volume systematic presentation of Rand's philosophy. Ethics is where the philosophical rubber meets the road in our lives, and Smith's book is the most thorough and enlightening presentation of the substance of Rand's ethics that exists. And Rand's monograph on concept formation is important because understanding the core of her epistemology will strengthen our understanding of her distinctive methodology and the character of her entire system. As for the order, there's a great reason for that, and I'm glad you'll ask about it in the first session! :^) Q: What's the fine print? A: Here are the details I could think of to keep The Objectivism Seminar sailing as smoothly as possible; other wrinkles will be addressed as they arise. GOVERNANCE: To put it simply, this is not a democracy. The Objectivism Seminar is a benevolent dictatorship, and I am The Man. :^) I will work for openness and consensus, and entertain suggestions about how to make this a fun and productive adventure for all—and when there are difficulties I will do my best to be patient and fair (I'm not without experience in this, and also not without room to grow). Ultimately, though, my call will constitute the final word on the forum. REFUNDS: The fee is fully refundable for any reason whatsoever in your first five sessions; after that, refunds will only happen for my failure to similarly conduct the ongoing sessions, and they will be pro-rated by the percentage of the book not yet discussed. (In all cases, Seminar refunds will exclude any cut PayPal may keep for our transactions.) Potential causes of pro-rated refunds would include: infrastructure difficulties making production of the Seminar too painful to continue, changes in my life that make conducting future sessions infeasible, my changing these terms in a way you don't like, my choosing to exclude you from the Seminar, etc. This venture was created to learn and spread good philosophical ideas in our culture, so the Seminar revenue is directed to that end: paying for the hosting facilities and any work done in the background, with the remaining balance going to ARI's wonderful Free Books for Teachers program. MEETING TIMES: The regular meeting time may shift to another day or time as life requires, and there will need to be occasional weeks off for holidays, vacation, hospitalization, etc. (Because I don't have the luxury of listening to the podcast and following up at the next session or via written questions. :^) RECORDINGS: Please keep in mind that the session recordings will belong to me and may not be shared, transferred, or distributed in any way without my explicit permission. Also, the recordings may be edited at my discretion to remove segments with, say, disturbing or distracting misbehavior. (Or, if you bribe me well enough, to remove that comment you made and can't bear to have people hearing in ten years.) [Updates: revised to reflect our dropping Skype and adopting Gizmo; adjusted refund section to reflect Paypal perhaps relinquishing its fees in the case of a refund. Revised for policy and platform changes adopted during first book.] E-mail Greg    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, October 23, 2007 Conceptual Art on Global Warming By Diana Hsieh @ 7:21 AM HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! TO: All CU-Boulder Students FROM: Center for Energy & Environmental Security, University of Colorado Law School SENDER: dorank@colorado.edu DATE: 10/22/07 SUBJECT: Famous Artist Lectures on Climate Change What: The Art of Climate Change Where: Wittemyer Courtroom, Wolf Law When: Oct. 25, 7:00 - 8:15 p.m., Free Event Dear CU-Boulder Students: Climate change is arguably the defining environmental and social issue of the 21st century. You are invited to attend a special lecture by Ms. Lucy Lippard on the use of art to impact climate change. Ms. Lippard is an internationally renowned writer, activist, curator, and acclaimed art critic. This is not a lecture about the science of climate change; nor is it a lecture about laws and policies dealing with climate change. Rather, this distinguished lecture is about the use of conceptual art to illuminate our understanding of the environmental, social and political dimensions of climate change; and perhaps more importantly, the ability of art to substantially influence our response to the challenges posed by climate change. Ms. Lippard's lecture, entitled "Weather Report: Art and Climate Change," will present imaginative and inspiring collaborations between acclaimed artists and world-class scientists designed to address, in a variety of ways, the issue of climate change. In a New York Times article published on Sept. 23, 2007, Ms. Lippard commented on these collaborations: "The critics used to say that conceptual art brings in too much other stuff, too many ideas. I love the idea that art can become something that acts in the world." Please join us in welcoming and learning from our distinguished guest, Ms. Lucy Lippard. For more information on this event, please visit: http://www.colorado.edu/law/eesi/Weather_Report.htm. Oh, how I do love the auto-parody! Labels: Academia E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, October 22, 2007 Leonard Peikoff, Podcaster By Diana Hsieh @ 12:31 PM Dr. Peikoff's first podcast has just been posted to his web site. You can e-mail him questions to answer at leonard@peikoff.com. Hooray! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis The Neurophysiology of Religious Experience By Paul @ 7:57 AM Scientific American has an interesting article summarizing what is known about the neurophysiology of meditation and religious experiences. The article does a good job describing the science, but in the end takes a deliberately agnostic view about the meaning of the results. Here are some excerpts: Spiritual neuroscience studies also face the profound challenge of language. No two mystics describe their experiences in the same way, and it is difficult to distinguish among the various types of mystical experiences, be they spiritual or traditionally religious. To add to the ambiguity, such feelings could also encompass awe of the universe or of nature. “If you are an atheist and you live a certain kind of experience, you will relate it to the magnificence of the universe. If you are a Christian, you will associate it with God. Who knows? ...Moreover, no matter what neural correlates scientists may find, the results cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Although atheists might argue that finding spirituality in the brain implies that religion is nothing more than divine delusion, the nuns were thrilled by their brain scans for precisely the opposite reason: they seemed to provide confirmation of God’s interactions with them. After all, finding a cerebral source for spiritual experiences could serve equally well to identify the medium through which God reaches out to humanity. Thus, the nuns’ forays into the tubular brain scanner did not undermine their faith. On the contrary, the science gave them an even greater reason to believe. Labels: Religion E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, October 21, 2007 Values Voters for Huckabee By Diana Hsieh @ 12:54 PM The straw poll at the recent "Values Voters Summit" yielded some noteworthy results: Romney took 27.6 percent of almost 6,000 votes cast, just ahead of Mike Huckabee, the folksy former governor of Arkansas, who gained 27.1 percent at the conference organized by the Family Research Council. Maverick Texas Congressman Ron Paul was third with almost 15 percent while former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson got under 10 percent, a major disappointment for his campaign. Giuliani was eighth with 107 votes -- under 2 percent. Apparently, Romney's campaign encouraged his supporters to register online with the Family Research Council to vote for him. So Huckabee might well be the man to watch. Marc Ambindiner of The Atlantic observes: Huckabee has made a habit of performing well at straw polls like these; there did seem to be a fair number of FairTax supporters, and they may have helped. But Huckabee's victory -- without much organizing -- suggests that his powers of persuasion are mighty and that the social conservative activists have come to know who he is and what he's about. It's hardly surprising that Huckabee appeals to evangelicals. On his issues page, the first item is "Religion and Politics." The summary says: "My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives." In other words, "I, Mike Huckabee, plan to govern as President of the United States of America based on my delusions about the will of God, as opposed to based on any kind of rational evaluation of the facts." Consistent with that faith-based approach to politics, Huckabee advocates constitutional amendments to ban abortion and to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He also says that his "personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life." Consistent with Jesus' admonition against divorce except for "unchastity" (Matthew 5:32), he supports -- and helped Ankansas adopt -- covenant marriage. Obviously, Huckabee doesn't have much national name-recognition yet. However, I worry that he might appeal to fiscal conservatives oblivious or indifferent to the danger of further entanglement of religion and politics. After all, he advocates the replacement of all federal income, payroll, corporate, and capital gains taxes with the "Fair Tax," i.e. a sales tax on all consumption above the poverty level. That might seem very appealing to the fiscal conservatives frustrated by President Bush's wild spending. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis New poll: 8.1% of Americans have read Atlas By Greg @ 7:19 AM For the 50th anniversary of Rand's magnum opus, Zogby International was commissioned to survey Americans on having read Atlas. The press release is pretty short, and reports on slipping in among others, the question: "Have you ever read the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand?" Some of the numbers reported included: 8.1% of Americans have read Atlas. 14% of those earning more than $100,000 have read it; 2% of those earning less than $35,000 have read it. Men and women were equally represented. People in the east, west, and south were about twice as likely to have read it than those in the central/Great Lakes region. 1239 Americans were surveyed (for an accuracy of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points). E-mail Greg    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, October 20, 2007 Amazon MP3s By Diana Hsieh @ 7:36 AM Hooray for capitalism! Amazon's cheaper and DRM-free MP3 store is going to put the squeeze on iTunes! Yes, you should use that link! Baby needs new shoes Diana needs books on moral responsibility, tort law, and character development. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, October 19, 2007 Hysterical Star Wars Trumpet Solo By Diana Hsieh @ 2:39 PM Via Flibbert: It was so much worse -- and so much funnier -- than I imagined possible. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Supposed Hawk Seeks Death of Military By Diana Hsieh @ 7:50 AM Silly me, I didn't think the altruism of the Bush Administration could morally decimate our military any further. Yet, it has: Preventing War Leads New Naval Strategy. In the first major revision of U.S. naval strategy in two decades, maritime officials said Wednesday they plan to focus more on humanitarian missions and improving international cooperation as a way to prevent conflicts. "We believe that preventing wars is as important as winning wars," said the new strategy announced by the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. The strategy reflects a broader Defense Department effort to use aid, training and other cooperative efforts to encourage stability in fledgling democracies and create relationships around the globe that can be leveraged if a crisis does break out in a region. "Although our forces can surge when necessary to respond to crises, trust and cooperation cannot be surged," says the 16-page document entitled "A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower." It also says forces will be concentrated "where tensions are high or where we wish to demonstrate to our friends and allies our commitment to security" -- something the U.S. did earlier this year in sending an additional aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region as a show of force toward Iran. "Credible combat power will be continuously posted in the Western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf/Indian Ocean to protect our vital interests, assure our friends ... and deter and dissuade potential adversaries," the strategy document said. ...Adm. Mike Mullen -- who just left his job as head of the Navy to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- has said he sees the Navy's humanitarian work as key to the effort to defeat terrorism by winning hearts and minds. When Roughead succeeded Mullen at the Navy last week, he called in a speech for more international partnerships to make the Navy a "force for good" around the globe. The various cuts in military funding commonly proposed by "doves" does not compare to the rejection of the basic moral purpose of the military by the supposed "hawk" who sits in the Oval Office. For more details on the effect of altruism on national defense, see Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein's article "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense. (Via Robert LC.) Labels: Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, October 18, 2007 OCB By Diana Hsieh @ 5:00 PM Thanks to Gus Van Horn, I've just been diagnosed with OCB. That's "Obsessive Compulsive Bookwormism." That description is perfect! P.S. Gus also has a great ghost story. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Objectivism Versus Christianity By Diana Hsieh @ 7:54 AM The already-lengthy comment thread on this article on the rejection of Christian values by Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism might be worth a post or two. The article itself accurately states the principles of the Objectivist ethics, then leaps off the cliff with the following: Rand's inversion of biblical norms had predictable results: Scott Ryan, who wrote a book on Rand's philosophy, called objectivism a "psychologically totalitarian personality cult that allowed Rand . . . to exercise personal power over [her] unwitting victims." He cites, for example, the way she manipulated "her own unemployed and dependent husband" to get him to agree for her to have "an adulterous sexual affair." We're not talking here about personal flaws or merely human weaknesses. As Ryan puts it, these abuses are "demonstrably connected to Rand's own 'philosophical' premises"--that is, her worldview. Rand and her followers, you see, lived in a way consistent with her worldview. But you can hardly regard a philosophy that exalts selfishness and condemns altruism as the basis for a good society. Obviously, that characterization of Ayn Rand's actions is completely wrong. (Thank you, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, yet again!) Yet the critical point is that the author merely quotes Ryan's assertion of a strong connection between her philosophy and that supposed behavior -- without even hinting at the nature of that actual connection. One can only suppose that the author regards respecting other people as a form of self-sacrifice. I'm happy to see articles like this one published. It doesn't misrepresent Objectivism, except by implication. It rightly claims that the ideas of Objectivism are wholly opposed to those of Christianity. Those two points might well inspire some curious people to pick up Atlas Shrugged. Heck, it might even lead some ordinary conservatives to question whether they can admire both Jesus and John Galt, as many claim to do. You can find the comments -- over 210 so far -- here. Labels: Objectivism, Religion E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, October 17, 2007 A Sign of Our Times By Diana Hsieh @ 8:43 AM Completely pathetic: Religious movie star Mark Wahlberg struggled with the script in director M. Night Shyamalan's new movie The Happening - because his character was required to blaspheme. Wahlberg has no problems swearing in his often gritty movies, but he tried not to use God's name in vain. So, when his latest director asked him to blaspheme, Wahlberg admits he had a real dilemma. He explains, "I had to say 'G' 'D' in this new movie and that was extremely difficult... He (Shyamalan) asked me if I would say it and I did, and I asked for forgiveness that night when I got home." Wahlberg was apparently born again while in prison. Blech! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, October 16, 2007 It Isn’t Easy Being Green By Diana Hsieh @ 8:07 AM Keith Lockitch recently published the following excellent op-ed on the phenomenon of "green consumerism": It Isn't Easy Being Green By Keith Lockitch It isn't news that environmentalism has gone mainstream in a big way--with organic food in every grocery store, hybrid cars on every freeway, and every mass-market magazine declaring green the "new black." More than ever before, consumers are buying into environmentalist ideology--and buying products that purport to impact nature less, in order to impact nature less. One would think that serious environmentalists would be thrilled about this trend--thrilled that the public seems willing to take ecological marching orders and do its duty to the planet. But they aren't: A backlash against "buying green" has arisen in environmentalist circles, with critics disparaging the new eco-consumers as "light greens," and condemning the "Cosmo-izing of the green movement." Surprising? Not really. Not if one grasps the deeper meaning of environmentalism. Most people have a mistaken view of environmentalism. They see it as a movement whose goal is to protect the environment so that we, and future generations, may continue to enjoy it. Environmentalists might call for certain sacrifices--like stern priests calling upon us to do penance for our sins--but people take their word for it that those sacrifices will turn out to be for the good of "society." People feel virtuous in paying more for those organic blueberries and spending time washing out tin cans and nasty cloth diapers, because they see it as a sacrifice for the "greater good." And although "going green" may demand some cost and effort, it need not--on this view--be too burdensome nor demand personal hardships that are too great. But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched--to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of "preserving nature" and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a "wetland" is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering. It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself. Though environmentalists will often claim to be opposed to merely "indiscriminate" or "excessive" consumption of natural resources, their ideology actually drives them to oppose any act of altering nature for human purposes. The environmentalist goal of "preserving nature" unavoidably conflicts with the requirements of human life: Man's basic means of survival is to reshape nature to serve his ends, to take the raw materials of his environment and use them to produce values. But this requires "touching" nature, not leaving it untouched. Even organic crops require land and water and energy; even hybrid cars are built of metal and plastic and glass, and use up fuel. All human activity, on whatever scale, violates the environmentalist injunction to "leave nature alone." This is why it is no surprise that environmentalist leaders would condemn "buying green" as a consumer trend. Says Michael Ableman, an organic farmer and environmental author: "The assumption that by buying anything, whether green or not, we're solving the problem is a misperception. Consuming is a significant part of the problem to begin with." In other words, the very act of consuming--i.e., pursuing material values in support of our lives--is a "problem." Environmentalists are criticizing "buying green," because at root they are against buying anything. Anyone who thinks that it's easy being "green"--that "eco-chic" is consistent with the principles of environmentalism--had better think harder about the true nature of the ideology they are helping bring into power. Environmentalists' call for minor sacrifices for the sake of some undefined "greater good" is the first stage in their call for sacrifice as such, for no human benefit whatsoever. If environmentalists are now confident enough to start attacking "buying green" as superficial and hypocritical, we had better take them at their word and stop buying anything they have to sell, especially their poisonous ideology. Keith Lockitch is a PhD in physics and a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Copyright (c) 2007 Ayn Rand(R) Institute. All rights reserved. Personally, I expect green consumerism to peak soon, then die down to a low hum. Why? Because much of it is nothing more than a fad diet. The obsession with organic food simply replaced the obsession with the low-carb diet. People abandoned low-carb in droves when they realized that it couldn't magically melt away pounds. The standard claim that organic food is healthier and more nutritious is obviously false. When people realize that they don't look or feel any better whether they eat organic rather than regular apples, they'll begin to wonder whether they're just wasting money. They'll also get tired of picking bugs out of their vegetables. (A friend and I found about 8 worms in 12 ears of organic corn bought for a Labor Day BBQ. Ick!) Moreover, with the deep greens attacking these lite greens for their feel-good pretense, many if not most people will wonder why they're bothering to shop green. I hope. E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, October 15, 2007 Grading Humor By Diana Hsieh @ 11:52 PM I finished grading the first papers of my Intro Phil class today, so I found this collection of funny non-answers highly amusing. Labels: Funny E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis I Wish vs. It Is By Greg @ 8:07 AM Investigators were stymied in their hunt for this serial rapist/murderer -- they were trying to find a white guy in a white pickup and getting nowhere as bodies piled up. Then molecular biologist Tony Frudakis offered to determine the race of their suspect with DNA analysis. The frustrated team accepted, and were hit with a surprise that would turn their whole investigation in an entirely different direction: There was a prolonged, stunned silence, followed by a flurry of questions looking for doubt but Frudakis had none. Would he bet his life on this, they wanted to know? Absolutely. In fact, he was certain that the Baton Rouge serial killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American. ... after the conference call with Frudakis, Lee jumped to the top of the suspect list. They got a subpoena for his DNA, collected a cheek swab and a day later, they had their answer: he was their man. Lee skipped town just ahead of the arrest warrant but was tracked down in Atlanta and returned to Baton Rouge within days. "CAUGHT" declared the Baton Rouge Advocate in giant print. Relatives of the victims described their thrill and relief that a dangerous killer was finally off the streets, but also frustration that it has taken so long. Few people knew that the most crucial piece of evidence was not unearthed by the hapless task force or forensic scientists but by a drug developer some 800 miles away. I love to see an active mind at work like this (he wasn't just solving the puzzle of this case, but also looking for a product to help his company survive). Frudakis developed a test that uses a set of 176 genetic markers selected precisely because they disclose the most information about physical characteristics. ... No one sequence alone can predict ancestral origin. However, by looking collectively at hundreds and analyzing the frequency of the various markers, Frudakis says he could predict genetic ancestry with 99 percent accuracy. Something that caught my attention was the clear sensitivity to the use of racial profiling, yet with no apparent awareness of what would make its use right or wrong. Consider that in their growing desperation, "police set up a dragnet to obtain DNA from some 1200 white men" (no probable cause, no warrant). But when they later thought they were after a black guy, they only used the racial information to filter their suspect list and focus their energies -- and they obtained a subpoena for the DNA sample needed to confirm his identity. This contrast in the use of racial information wasn't even noted, much less discussed. But the part of the article that was most disturbing were the negative reactions cited, ranging from denial, to worry about a slippery slope into eugenics, and concluding with this jaw-dropper: [Frudakis] has identified the gene sequences associated with height, and has compiled a database of 5000 digital photographs of people with almost every racial ancestry combination -- which, one day, he says could allow him to construct a physical portrait of a DNA donor, including melanin content, skin color or eye color. But even the people one might think should be his biggest allies aren't supporting that, including Tony Clayton, the special prosecutor ... Clayton, who is black, admits that he initially dismissed Frudakis as some white guy trying to substantiate his racist views. He no longer believes that and says "had it not been for Frudakis, we would still be looking for the white guy in the white pick-up truck." But then he adds, "We've been taught that we're all the same, that we bleed the same blood. If you subscribe to the (Frudakis) theory, you're saying we are inherently unequal." He continues: "If I could push a button and make this technology disappear, I would." Wow. Talk about a mind so addled by fashionable prejudices that it has disintegrated into incoherence. Sadly, he is not alone. It isn't as if we aren't aware that, setting aside twins, we are all genetically unique (not unequal). That's the basis for DNA fingerprinting, after all. Likewise, it isn't any revelation that our skin, eye, and hair color are driven by our DNA. And general patters of ancestral similarity in these traits have long been noted. Basically, leaving behind the genetic markers Frudakis focuses on is like being spied by a (limited-resolution) security camera. But does anybody likewise worry about racist motives and inviting a eugenic slippery slope with the invention of security cameras? No. Would anybody in law enforcement likewise wish for their disappearance? Of course not. E-mail Greg    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, October 14, 2007 Heinlein Quote of the Day By Paul @ 6:53 AM Science fiction writer Robert Heinlein was philosophically mixed, but capable of some great quotes. Here's a classic that was recently cited on Instapundit: Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck." E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, October 13, 2007 Christianity in America By Diana Hsieh @ 7:53 AM Monica recently wrote an excellent post on religion in American culture and politics. She cites some significant statistics about religious beliefs, but the most memorable tidbit is the story of the fundamentalist Christian's response to her aunt selling The Da Vinci Code at a yard sale. Yikes! E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, October 12, 2007 50 Bush Quotes on Religion By Diana Hsieh @ 8:20 AM 50 Bush Quotes on Religion: 1. I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. (Sharm el-Sheikh August 2003) 2. I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job. (Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004) 3. I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else to God. We are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God. (Washington, D.C., Jan. 14, 2005) 4. God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear. (Los Angeles, California, Mar. 3, 2004) 5. I tell people all the time, you're equally American if you're a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. You're equally American if you believe in an Almighty or don't believe in an Almighty. That's a sacred freedom. (Washington, D.C., Mar. 10, 2006) 6. Well, first of all, you got to understand some of my view on freedom, it's not American's gift to the world. See, freedom is God -- is God given. (Interview with TVR, Romania, Nov. 23, 2002) 7. I'm sure there is some kind of heavy doctrinal difference, which I'm not sophisticated enough to explain to you. (Explaining the issues involved in his switching from attending an Episcopal church to attending a Methodist one, around Jul. 1, 1994) 8. I don't think you order suiciders to kill innocent men, women, and children if you're a religious person. (Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, Jul. 14, 2004) 9. And there's nothing more powerful in helping change the country than the faith -- faith in Dios. (National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., May 16, 2002) 10. We believe in an Almighty, we believe in the freedom for people to worship that Almighty. They don't. (Martinsburg, West Virginia, Jul. 4, 2007) 11. The spirit of our people is the source of America's strength. And we go forward with trust in that spirit, confidence in our purpose, and faith in a loving God who made us to be free. (5th anniversary of the Sep. 11 attacks, White House, Sep. 11, 2006) 12. Churches all across the country are reaching out -- synagogues, people from different faiths understand that it makes sense to help their parishioners realize the benefits of this plan. (Sun City Center, Florida, May 9, 2006) 13.We can never replace lives, and we can't heal hearts, except through prayer. (Enterprise, Alabama, Mar. 3, 2007) 14. God bless the people of this part of the world. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, Aug. 4, 2007) 15. I believe there's an Almighty, and I believe the Almighty's great gift to each man and woman in this world is the desire to be free. This isn't America's gift to the world, it is a universal gift to the world, and people want to be free. (Manhattan, Kansas, Jan. 23, 2006) 16. I couldn't imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah. (White House, Dec. 10, 200117.) 17. I see an opportunity at home when I hear the stories of Christian and Jewish women alike, helping women of cover, Arab American women go shop because they're afraid to leave their home. (Washington, D.C., Oct. 4, 2001) 18. It's a sign from above. Comment made when television light caught fire above crowd. (Sioux Falls, South Dakota, Mar. 9, 2001) 19. I did denounce it. I de- I denounced it. I denounced interracial dating. I denounced anti-Catholic bigacy... bigotry. (Responding to attacks on his visit to ultra-conservative Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina, Feb. 25, 2000) 20. We are grateful for the freedoms we enjoy, grateful for the loved ones who give meaning to our lives, and grateful for the many gifts of this prosperous land. On Thanksgiving we acknowledge that all of these things, and life itself, come not from the hand of man, but from Almighty God. (Washington, D.C., Nov. 30, 2002) 21. We say in our country, everybody matters, everybody is precious in the sight of an Almighty. (Northern State University, Aberdeen, South Dakota, Oct. 31, 2002) 22. We love the fact that people can worship an almighty God any way they see fit here in America. (Phoenix, Arizona, Sep. 28, 2002) 23. And I just -- I cannot speak strongly enough about how we must collectively get after those who kill in the name of -- in the name of some kind of false religion. (Press appearance with King Abdullah of Jordan, Aug. 1, 2002) 24. We are commanded by God and called by our conscience to love others as we want to be loved ourselves. (Ohio State University, Jun. 14, 2002) 25. By being active citizens in your church or your synagogue, or for those Muslims, in your mosque, and adhering to the admission to love a neighbor just like you'd like to be loved yourself, that's how we can stand up. (Remarks to the cattle industry annual convention and trade show, Denver, Colorado, Feb. 8, 2002) 26. And we base it, our history, and our decision making, our future, on solid values. The first value is, we're all God's children. (Washington, D.C., Jul. 16, 2003) 27. One of the great things about this country is a lot of people pray. (Washington, D.C., Apr. 13, 2003) 28. And there's no doubt in my mind, when the United States acts abroad and home, we do so based upon values -- particularly the value that we hold dear to our hearts, and that is, everybody ought to be free. I want to repeat what I said during my State of the Union to you. Liberty is not America's gift to the world. What we believe strongly, and what we hold dear, is liberty is God's gift to mankind. And we hold that value precious. And we believe it is true. (White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, Feb. 9, 2003) 29. This great, powerful nation is motivated not by power for power's sake, but because of our values. If everybody matters, if every life counts, then we should hope everybody has the great God's gift of freedom. (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Jan. 29, 2003) 30. The short-term objective of this country is to find an enemy and bring them to justice before they strike us. The long-term objective is to make this world a more free and hopeful and peaceful place. I believe we'll succeed because freedom is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world. (Portsmouth, Ohio, Sep. 10, 2004) 31. And if you choose to -- if you believe in the Almighty, you can -- you're equally an American. If you're a Jew, Christian or Muslim or Hindi or whatever. It is one of the great traits and traditions of our country, where people can worship the way you see fit. (Interview on Larry King Live, CNN, Aug. 15, 2004) 32. By the way, to whom much has been given, much is owed. Not only are we leading the world in terms of encouraging freedom and peace, we're feeding the hungry. We're taking care of, as best as we possibly can, the victims of HIV/AIDS. (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Jul. 20, 2004) 33. Faith-based is an important part of my life, individually, but I don't -- I don't ascribe a person's opposing my nominations to an issue of faith. (Prime time press conference, White House, Apr. 28, 2005) 34. I believe liberty is universal. I don't believe it is just for the United States of America alone. I believe there is an Almighty, and I believe the Almighty's gift to people worldwide is the desire