| Monday, March 31, 2008 |
 |
Fundamentalism in the Military
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:14 AM   
US military accused of harboring fundamentalism:
Feb 13, 2008: Since his last combat deployment in Iraq, Jeremy Hall has had a rough time, getting shoved and threatened by his fellow soldiers.
The trouble started there when he would not pray in the mess hall.
"A senior ranking staff sergeant told me to leave and sit somewhere else because I refused to pray," Hall, a 23-year-old US army specialist, told AFP. Later, Hall was confronted by a major for holding an authorized meeting of "atheists and freethinkers" on his base. The officer threatened to discipline him and block his re-enlistment. "He said: 'You guys are being a problem and problems can be removed,'" Hall said. "He was yelling at us and stuff and at the very end he says, 'I really love you guys, I want you to see the light.'"
Now Hall is suing the major and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, accusing them of breaching his constitutional rights. A campaign group, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is waiting for the Pentagon to respond to a lawsuit filed in a Kansas federal court on Hall's behalf. It alleges a "pernicious pattern and practice" of infringement of religious liberties in the military.
The group's founder, former Air Force lawyer Mikey Weinstein, said he has documented 6,800 testimonies by military personnel -- nearly all of them Christians -- of sometimes punitive or humiliating attempts to make them accept a fundamentalist evangelical interpretation of Christianity.
"I am at war with those people who would create a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in the technologically most lethal organization ever created by our species, which is the United States armed forces," he said.
He plans to add extra charges and possibly other lawsuits this month.
"It violates title seven of the US code for an employer to push their Biblical world view on an employee," he said. "But it's a trillion times worse when that is not just your shift manager at Starbucks but that is your military superior."
He singles out one of the major Christian groups in the military, the Officers Christian Fellowship (OCF). The group represents 15,000 US military personnel around the world, according to its director, retired Air Force general Bruce Fister. "It is not the position of OCF to try and coerce people to believe what we believe," Fister told AFP. OCF's aim, as stated on its website, is to achieve "a spiritually transformed military, with ambassadors for Christ in uniform, empowered by the Holy Spirit." It professes belief in "the eternal blessedness of the saved; and the everlasting, conscious punishment of the lost."
... Un-freaking-believable.
Update: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation can be found on the web at militaryreligiousfreedom.org.Labels: Politics, Religion
|
| |
 E-mail Diana Hsieh
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments [8] (New Page)
|
|
| Thursday, March 27, 2008 |
|
Long Distance Wi-Fi
By Paul Hsieh @ 6:42 AM
This is just friggin' awesome:Long-Distance Wi-Fi
Intel has found a way to stretch a Wi-Fi signal from one antenna to another located more than 60 miles away.
Intel has announced plans to sell a specialized Wi-Fi platform later this year that can send data from a city to outlying rural areas tens of miles away, connecting sparsely populated villages to the Internet. The wireless technology, called the rural connectivity platform (RCP), will be helpful to computer-equipped students in poor countries, says Jeff Galinovsky, a senior platform manager at Intel. And the data rates are high enough--up to about 6.5 megabits per second--that the connection could be used for video conferencing and telemedicine, he says.
The RCP, which essentially consists of a processor, radios, specialized software, and an antenna, is an appealing way to connect remote areas that otherwise would go without the Internet, says Galinovsky. Wireless satellite connections are expensive, he points out. And it's impractical to wire up some villages in Asian and African countries. "You can't lay cable," he says. "It's difficult, expensive, and someone is going to pull it up out of the ground to sell it."
...Importantly, the devices require relatively little power. Running two or three radios in a link, Galinvosky says, requires about five to six watts. This makes it possible to power the radios using solar energy. Labels: Technology
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [1] (New Page)
|
|
| Monday, March 24, 2008 |
|
The Psychological Effects of Prostitution
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:53 AM
Ari Armstrong recently published a defense of legal (but not moral) prostitution in the Rocky Mountain News: Should prostitution be legal?. It's a good analysis: I recommend reading it.
As a followup on the OBloggers mailing list, Paul posted the following commentary on prostitution from a former booking agent for a high-end escort service describing the destructive effects of prostitution on the women and the clients. It's fascinating, so I thought I'd repost it here:
"I've Seen My Share of Spitzers: The View From an Escort Service"
[About the men:]
.....But why would a rich, powerful and handsome man pay for extra-marital sex? Aren't there tons of women waiting to throw themselves at him for free? Yes, there are. But those women always want something: they want attention, intimacy and romance. They want to enjoy the high of sleeping with a powerful man. Escorts don't want or care about any of those things. At least one of the articles about the 22 year-old escort who slept with Spitzer implied that she didn't even know who he was. Based on my experience, I think it's highly unlikely that she knew or cared. She was in it for the money, and she had as much to hide as he did.
One high-powered New York attorney explained it to me like this: "Of course I love my wife. Escorts have nothing to do with that. She comes to my hotel room and I don't have to know her name, because they all use fake names like Amber and Kimberly. I don't have to worry about how she feels or what she wants. It's a simple exchange: I give her a thousand bucks, we have a good time for a couple of hours, she goes away and we never have to see each other again."
A thousand dollars is nothing for these men. Money has little value; because no matter how hard they try they will never be able to spend their hundreds of millions. And if you are about to say that for a thousand bucks those girls must supply the best sex in history, then you really do not understand this world. Because it is not about sex; it is about power. And the simple act of ordering up an anonymously pretty 22 year-old girl to do your bidding in the salubrious confines of a luxury hotel suite is an act of power.
[About the women:]
.....None of these girls was coerced into selling her body for money. Most of them came from middle-class backgrounds, and many had been accepted to universities. But they dropped out as soon as they discovered that they could make $20-30,000 a month as an escort.
Then they got addicted to the money and the lifestyle. And then one day, usually between the ages of 25 and 28, once they'd developed that knowing, experienced look that clients instinctively disliked, they found that themselves in a classic bind: they were addicted to high living but could no longer pay for it; they had no marketable skills; and years of late nights and lazy days had left them with no self-discipline. What to do? The really smart ones pulled themselves together and, with the help of a sympathetic client, started some kind of a business. Others married rich, cynical, older men in a sort of paid-wife arrangement. Those were the most common stories. I did not inquire into the fate of the girls who sort of faded away. I did not want to hear about their loneliness and poverty. You can read the full essay here.Labels: Ethics, Love/Sex, Politics, Psychology
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [13] (New Page)
|
|
| Sunday, March 23, 2008 |
|
BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:42 PM
Awesome news:
BB&T Donates $2 Million for Ayn Rand Research At The University of Texas at Austin
March 20, 2008
AUSTIN, Texas -- BB&T Corporation, one of the nation's largest banks, has awarded $2 million to the Department of Philosophy at The University of Texas at Austin to establish the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism.
Tara Smith, professor of philosophy, has been named the first holder of the chair. Over 10 years, the gift will support research on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, as well as conferences, workshops, guest lecturers, visiting scholars and research on the moral foundations of capitalism.
Smith spearheads Objectivism scholarship in the university's philosophy department. She has published several articles on Rand's philosophy and the 2006 book, "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist" with Cambridge University Press. She holds the Anthem Foundation Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism and is organizing the interdisciplinary conference, "Objectivity in the Law," April 4-5.
"Ayn Rand's philosophy has been the subject of increasing academic interest in recent years, and this generous gift will allow us to deepen examination of her thought and engage leading scholars in other fields, such as law," the Rand scholar said. "It's an exhilarating opportunity and a testament to BB&T's recognition of the vital importance of philosophy in people's lives."
Rand, a Russian-born American philosopher and novelist, is best known for her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged." A joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that "Atlas Shrugged" is the second most influential book for Americans today, after the Bible. According to the Ayn Rand Institute, an estimated 20 million copies of her books have been sold.
"We believe that ideas matter. In this context, BB&T is trying to encourage a thorough and fair discussion of Rand's philosophy and the moral foundations of capitalism on university campuses," said BB&T Chief Executive Officer John Allison. "We are pleased to support the philosophy department's important work in the study of Objectivism at The University of Texas at Austin."
BB&T Corp., headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C., is a financial holding company with $132.6 billion in assets. With more than 29,000 employees, its bank subsidiaries operate more than 1,500 branch offices in 11 states and Washington, D.C. If you'd like more information on John Allison, you can listen to an excellent EconTalk interview with him. (To hear of a company systematically practicing the Objectivist ethics is quite thrilling!) You can also read about BB&T's philosophy and values on their web site.Labels: Announcements, Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [5] (New Page)
|
|
| Friday, March 21, 2008 |
|
Yaron Brook Op-Ed in Forbes
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:29 AM
Yaron Brook has published an op-ed on campaign finance reform in Forbes. Here's the opening paragraph:
This presidential campaign will be, by far, the most expensive in U.S. history. And it is ironic that John McCain, the co-author of McCain-Feingold, is one of the candidates hustling to raise tens of millions of dollars. One thing is for sure: No matter who wins, the call for more campaign finance legislation will intensify--all in the name of combating the allegedly corrupting influence of money on politics. This is ominous, because what campaign finance restrictions actually do is subject political speech to the corrupting influence of government control. It's an excellent column, particularly in its use of telling examples from the current presidential election. Sadly, one need not look far to see the absurdity of the McCain-Feingold law and other restrictions on political speech. His point about total government funding of elections as a sure means of creating a "political aristocracy" in America as particularly apt -- and chilling. Based on the numbers he cites, it's already happening in America, thanks to current regulations.
Also, if you like the article, please do post a supportive comment, rate it highly, e-mail it to friends, etc.
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [1] (New Page)
|
|
| Thursday, March 20, 2008 |
|
Easter Safety
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:26 AM
So much is horribly wrong with this news report that I just don't know where to begin...
Easter warning: crucifixion is bad for you
By Thomas Bell, South East Asia Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:54am GMT 20/03/2008
Many people in the Philippines consider crucifixion and self flagellation good for the soul, but it is bad for your health according to new government advice for penitents.
This Holy Week, the thousands of guilt stricken or pious worshippers who will flay the skin off their backs, and the handful who will crucify themselves, are encouraged to get a tetanus shot first and be sure to use a clean whip or nails. "We are not trying to go against the Lenten tradition here because whipping has somewhat already become some form of 'atonement for sins' for some of us," Health Secretary Francisco Duque the 3rd said. "Getting deep cut wounds during whippings or lashings is inevitable and being so exposed during the course of the penitence, with all the heat and dust blowing in the wind, welcomes all sorts of infections and bacteria like tetanus," he explained.
Re-enactments of the Passion of Christ are common in many parts of the mostly Roman Catholic Philippines but frowned upon by the church authorities. In San Fernando City 23 people, including two women, have signed up to re-enact the crucifixion at three "improvised Golgothas" around town. Four of them will use real nails. The city government's website trumpets the preparations.
"The City Health Office (CHO) autoclaved all the nails to be used and will administer anti-tetanus vaccine to all the "Cristos" to ensure their protection from possible infection," it points out. City officials will conduct an inspection of the Golgothas on Thursday.
The festival is sponsored by Coca-cola and a company called Smart Telecommunications.
In a break from the original tradition, penitents are encouraged to "bring enough drinking water for the whole course of the pilgrimage to avoid dehydration, rather than buy bottled drinking water from unfamiliar sources."
There is also government advice for the many tourists and spectators who attend the events. "It is also better to bring self-prepared foods such as sandwiches, not only to save money, but also to avoid getting diseases such as diarrhea, hepatitis A, and typhoid after eating food bought from street vendors," the health secretary suggested. Wow. Why can't they just do a nice quiet egg hunt?!? (Oh wait, that's the pagan tradition. Silly me!)Labels: Religion
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [8] (New Page)
|
|
| Wednesday, March 19, 2008 |
|
OCON Early Registration Deadline
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:02 AM
The early registration deadline for OCON 2008 is fast approaching: it's March 31st. So if you plan to attend or if you're thinking of attending, you'll wish to register sooner rather than later to receive the price discounts.
If you want recommendations on particular optional courses, I'd be happy to provide those. Just e-mail me. I'm taking fewer than usual this year, as I expect to be working on my dissertation during OCON. I've signed up for:
Depending on my work schedule, I'm also hoping to be able to attend John Lewis' course Rome's Punic Wars: Three Victories and Their Lessons in Session 2, but I won't commit to that until OCON itself. (Paul is taking it.) John's courses are always excellent, so I'll definitely buy the course if I'm unable to attend.
As for the general courses, I'm especially looking forward to:
As usual, Paul and I will be attending the opening banquet, but not the closing banquet or the Fourth of July picnic.Labels: Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [2] (New Page)
|
|
|
More Quick Movie Reviews
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:39 AM
More quick movie reviews:
- Scoop: An enjoyable and clever bit of fun, with very good acting.
- Million Dollar Baby: Stellar acting, and a gut-wrenching plot. I only wish I'd seen it earlier. (See this article on Hilary Swank's training for the film.)
- Collateral: Interesting premise, but not particularly exciting in its execution.
- Stardust: A charming and clever fairy tale, in a similar vein as The Princess Bride. Strongly recommended.
What have you seen lately that you liked?Labels: Film
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [5] (New Page)
|
|
| Friday, March 14, 2008 |
|
Question for NoodleFood: Environmentalism
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:30 AM
Graig Janssen asks:
I'm a regular reader of Noodlefood, and have a question about environmentalism. I understand and agree with the idea that human beings should not hold nature as an end in itself nor sacrifice themselves for its benefit. However, does Objectivism differentiate between environmentalism of this kind and the kind that would seek to preserve the planet for humanity's own sake? For example, many Objectivists seem to be of the mind that the global warming issue is nothing but hysterical propaganda aimed at subjugating mankind to nature. However, isn't it in our self interest to avoid a future catastrophe that could be disastrous for people as well as the planet? If there are scientific papers claiming that global warming poses no threat to humans, I'd very much like to read them. Do you think Objectivists are too quick in dismissing pro-environment ideas as "anti-man" when there are clearly cases in which both environment and mankind benefit? That's a good question. Due to constraints of time and ignorance, I will limit myself to a few brief comments, plus recommended reading.
An environment conductive to human life is definitely a genuine value to be sought and kept: it's necessary for life! That requires a broad concern for all living organisms and their environs, as well as for the future effects of present actions -- but within limits. In other words, we shouldn't adopt any precautionary principle, nor just extrapolate from current trends to 50 generations hence, nor protect dangerous-right-now species based on claims of intrinsic value or on arbitrary speculation about future benefits. Today's environmentalists do that in spades -- with predictably absurd results. Without exception, environmental philosophy is seriously, deeply corrupt.
None of the above implies that environmental questions can be resolved from a comfy philosophic armchair. Sure, philosophy must identify the proper standards of proof in science, the ultimate value of human life, and the absolute requirement of respect for rights in public policy. Yet the particular details of environmental problems and solutions must be left to the experts, i.e. the biologists, geologists, chemists, etc. I'm certainly skeptical of the claims of impending doom from global warming, but I have only laymen's questions, not proof. I can say that whatever the environmental problem, the proper solution is more reason, more egoism, and more freedom, particularly more respect for the rights to life, liberty, and property -- not less. That's easy to assert in the abstract, but likely more difficult to implement, as the proper legal remedies for collectively-caused environmental torts are not obvious. Working out those problems would require not just good philosophy in general, but also expertise in philosophy of law, particularly tort law.
As for further readings, I'd recommend a few items off the beaten track from two Objectivists I respect:
While I don't agree with all that is said in those essays, they do thoughtfully challenge the sweeping disdain for environmental concerns sometimes espoused by Objectivists.Labels: Environmentalism, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [48] (New Page)
|
|
| Thursday, March 13, 2008 |
|
Campus Rape Culture?
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:08 AM
Heather MacDonald has an excellent article in The City Journal entitled "The Campus Rape Myth." It's a detailed look at the supposedly widespread phenomena of campus rape.
While I'm pretty familiar with the absurd statistics that feminists use to support their claims that rape on campus by acquaintances is commonplace, I didn't realize the obvious implication: that campuses waste oodles of money in the attempt to offer support for mostly non-existent campus rape victims. In other words, the phones of campus rape crisis lines are mostly silent.
While I was disappointed by MacDonald's final suggestion that postponing sex until marriage might be the proper alternative to indiscriminate sex, her general point in the article -- that women must take responsibility for their sex lives, including the compromising positions in which they often place themselves -- is completely right.
In fact, the article made me think that the topic might be worth teaching in my Intro Ethics course, particularly since the course covers various philosophers' views of sex, friendship, and pleasure. I'd definitely like to connect some of those older views with a modern debate about student life!Labels: Feminism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [2] (New Page)
|
|
| Wednesday, March 12, 2008 |
|
Washington Times Letter
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Hooray! My letter to the editor in praise of Dick Armey's moral defense of intellectual property was published in The Washington Times today:
Sing a song
Thanks to Dick Armey ("Airing on free use," Commentary, Friday) for defending intellectual property in broadcast radio as a matter of justice to the creators.
Today's producers of music--artists, management and record companies--offer consumers around the world a vast array of music for all tastes. Those producers deserve to be rewarded handsomely for their efforts, not cheated of royalties by legal loopholes for broadcast radio or online file sharing.
Without the producers of music, we'd be stuck listening to our own off-key shower singing.
DIANA HSIEH
Sedalia, Colo. Normally, I prefer to focus my activism efforts on local papers, but that was too good an opportunity to pass by. Paul also published a letter to the editor on health care in The Christian Science Monitor last Friday. Hooray FIRM!Labels: Activism, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [5] (New Page)
|
|
| Tuesday, March 11, 2008 |
|
Alex Epstein on Market Neutral
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:00 AM
In this 35 minute "Market Neutral" podcast, Chip Hanlon interviews ARI's Alex Epstein. The description reads: "Ayn Rand Institute analyst, Alex Epstein, discusses government's proper role in 'fixing' the subprime mess. He also weighs in on Libertarians, with remarks that may surprise given the recent euphoria surrounding long-shot presidential candidate, Ron Paul." (Via Mike)
I was able to listen to this podcast in early January. It was definitely interesting, particularly the comments on Ron Paul and libertarianism. I'm not sure that I agree with Alex's analysis of libertarianism, but it was good food for thought.
Update: I recalled what in particular I disagreed with in Alex's analysis of libertarianism. It's posted in the comments.Labels: Libertarianism, Objectivism, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [15] (New Page)
|
|
| Monday, March 10, 2008 |
|
How OActivists Can Help ARI Promote Cultural Change
By Paul Hsieh @ 7:00 AM
How does the formal work of the Ayn Rand Institute fit in with the informal work of the OActivists list in their mutual goal of promoting Objectivist ideas? Although the two entities are separate and independent, I'd like to sketch out one possible way that both groups could work to their mutual benefit.
Yaron Brook mentioned in last year's "State of the ARI" address that one of his eventual goals was to have Ayn Rand's ideas circulating everywhere. Those ideas might not necessarily always be associated with her name or the name "Objectivism", but they would become part of the background cultural climate.
So this would mean that an average thoughtful person would get exposed to Ayn Rand's ideas if he walked into his local Starbucks and overheard other customers discussing foreign policy. Or if he started talking politics with his coworkers at lunch. If he opened the newspaper, he'd see a letter to the editor taking an Objectivist position. If he read a blog post about a current events topic, he would see someone in the comments section offering an Objectivist perspective.
Even if those ideas weren't always associated with the names "Ayn Rand" or "Objectivism", they would still have an effect. And of course, once an honest and open-minded person started doing some investigation, he would quickly find out where they came from.
For instance, if he asked his co-worker at lunch where he heard that interesting take on Middle East politics, his friend might say, "My cousin mentioned it to me last week, and he said it came from Ayn Rand". Then he might read an OpEd in his local newspaper from the Ayn Rand Institute. Then his daughter might tell him that her high school English class was covering the theme of independence and individualism in their reading of the Ayn Rand novel, The Fountainhead. A leftist local politician whom he disliked might say something snarky about Ayn Rand while advocating another bad government program.
Each repetition of those ideas would continue to reinforce one another, and soon the average honest person would recognize that there was an interesting body of ideas out there, from Ayn Rand under the name of "Objectivism" -- a body of ideas that had application to real-world issues that were important to him.
If we got to that stage, then we would be in pretty good shape. As Ayn Rand's ideas became widely circulated in the culture and recognized as such, then they would be (correctly) regarded as part of the mainstream of public discussion. From there, it would be much easier for Objectivists (either at the Ayn Rand Institute or outside of it) to have opinion pieces published regularly in major outlets such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Investors Business Daily, etc., with an explicit affiliation to "Ayn Rand" and/or "Objectivism". Similarly, Objectivsts would be appear regularly on television and radio programs. News editors would want to know the Objectivist position on important public issues, just as they currently seek out the environmentalist viewpoint or the feminist viewpoint or the religious conservative viewpoint on a variety of issues.
At that point, I believe that the quality and clarity of Objectivists ideas compared to those of the opposition would become increasingly apparent to all reasonable people, especially because it would resonate with the fairly good "sense of life" still held by many Americans. They would learn that there was an explicit philosophy that matched their implicit sense of life. And once we established a self-reinforcing "virtuous cycle" where the advocacy of our ideas inspired others (Objectivists and non-Objectivists alike) to express support for similar ideas, then we would be well on our way to victory.
So how does the OActivists project fit into all this? I believe that we can be very helpful throughout this process, but especially in this critical first phase of getting the ideas seeded and circulated in the culture. Everyone who has an interest in some sort of activism can proceed in whatever fashion suits his or her own goals, interests, and desires. This should not b | |
