Changing the Wind: The Opposition's Perspective By Paul @ 1:14 AM
At FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine), we may or may not necessarily win the battle over any specific piece of legislation. But as Lin Zinser has pointed out, that's a secondary goal. Our main goal is the promote the idea of free market health care and to make it part of the mainstream discussion, so that policy makers and the general public regard it as a serious alternative to the status quo.
Or to borrow a point from Richard Ralston of AFCM (Americans for Free Choice in Medicine), "Don't worry about changing the politicians. The politicians will wear their fingers to the bone sticking them in the air to test which way the wind is blowing. Instead, work on changing the wind. If you change the wind, the politicians will follow."
One indication that we are having the desired effect comes from our ideological opposition. A few months ago, Michele Swenson, an advocate of Canadian-style "single payer" health care for Colorado posted the following on the weblog for ProgressNow.org, which is one of the "progressive" leftist advocacy organizations in Colorado. She was complaining about the horrible media bias towards free market health care, and the appalling lack of coverage for her beloved single-payer "solution". Here's an excerpt:
Open Letter to Denver Media: The information blackout by the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News regarding Single Payer health care reform - their bias toward 'free-market' solutions
Throughout the process of the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform, the two large Denver newspapers have consistently failed to present factual information about the Colorado Health Services Single Payer Proposal -- the one that was most favorably evaluated by the Lewin Group.
Since March of 2007 both the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News have each printed a number of commentaries by 'free-market' health care advocates Brian T. Schwartz and Paul Hsieh, as well as commentaries by Sen. Andy McElhany and ex-Senator Mark Hillman. Only Rep. Claire Levy was granted a commentary in the Post that dissented from the predominant 'free market' view.
At least five commentaries since the Spring of 2007 have been submitted by myself and others about the advantages of the Single Payer proposal, as well as the broken system of third-party multi-payer commercial health insurances. The information has been ignored by the Post and the News. Only out-state papers like the Pueblo Chieftain and some northern Colorado papers, including the Fort Collins Coloradoan and the Northern Colorado Business Report, have consistently printed different perspectives of health care reform, including the Single Payer perspective...
Our opposition definitely knows that we are out there. And they are clearly feeling a bit on the defensive.
So we must be doing something right if the statists are demoralized over what they believe to be a media bias towards the "predominant 'free market' view"!
Of course we still have a long ways to go. And there will be inevitable ups and downs throughout the process. But I believe that we can take heart from our opponents' statements and recognize that we are changing the direction of the wind.
I'm particularly entranced with the possibility of unzipping portions of my dress as I move through the day. How convenient that would be! (Not! It's yet another case of predicting bundling as some great benefit, when in fact it wouldn't be more convenient but only more limiting.)
However, the man-outfit toward the end of the clip is quite spectacular. It's spaceman-like qualities are quite ironic, given that men's clothing hasn't changed all that much since the 1930s.
The Post-American World By Paul @ 12:05 AM
Recently, there have been a couple of high-profile articles featuring excerpts from the forthcoming book by Fareed Zakaria, international editor for Newsweek, entitled The Post-American World.
These articles have already gotten a lot of attention on the blogosphere, and I anticipate the book will also be widely discussed. The basic premise is that the current era of American dominance in the world will soon come to an end, yielding to other powers such as China and India, much as the British dominance in the 19th century ended in the early 20th century (fortunately yielding to the United States.)
Zakaria does recognize important differences between the two situations, and he makes a number of correct observations with respect to specific issues and challenges facing the US. For instance, in the Newsweek article, he correctly points out that the US benefits greatly from energy of hard-working immigrants seeking to better their lives. In the Foreign Affairs article, he correctly notes that onerous government regulations threaten to harm the vitality of our capital markets, to the detriment of Americans in a global economy.
However, he also makes some serious errors. For instance, in the first article, he argues that the key in the international arena is to work on stabilizing the "global system" and ensuring that "China, India, Russia, Brazil all feel that they have a stake in the existing global order", to lessen the dangers of "war, depression, panics, and breakdowns". In the second article, he blames our "dysfunctional" political system, and argues that politicians of both major political parties must "compromise" in order to address major issues such as "health care, Social Security, tax reform".
Overall, he doesn't quite manage to tie all his points into a single unifying theme. Hence, I think this is an excellent opportunity for interested Objectivists to set forth their own arguments on the source of American greatness, what happened to erode it, and how we can recover it.
For example, here is the LTE I sent to Newsweek in response to their article:
American decline is far from inevitable. America rose to greatness because it was founded on the principle of individual rights for all men (albeit imperfectly implemented). The resultant boom in American prosperity and power was the result of a capitalist system that allowed men and women to freely use their reason to better their lives. China and India are prospering because they are starting to allow partial capitalism into their economies as well.
If America wants to remain a vibrant, prosperous country, we need to abandon our current path towards European-style welfare statism and return to laissez-faire capitalism. The government should confine itself to protecting the individual's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and barring the initiation of force between men. If we reaffirm that basic principle, America can continue to remain a shining example of freedom and prosperity for the rest of the world.
Paul Hsieh, MD Sedalia, CO
Obviously, much more could be written on this subject. And Objectivists have a number of important and unique ideas to contribute to this discussion.
Currently, the federal government does not allow people to carry concealed weapons in National Parks. The Dept of the Interior is considering changing that rule so that if you have a valid permit to carry in your state, then you can also carry in a National Park located within that state.
(Currently, one can do so in a National Forest but not a National Park.)
The Fed Gov is currently requesting public comments in support or opposition of this measure.
As a concealed carry permit holder in Colorado, I strongly support this change in rules to allow the carrying of firearms in national parks as state law allows.
The ban on firearms in national parks disarms honest, law abiding citizens, thereby preventing them from protecting themselves if attacked. Meanwhile, the criminals know that park visitors are easy pickings, precisely because they are disarmed.
The standard claim that allowing concealed carry will result in more violence and crime is plainly false -- as empirical data from the 36 states with shall-issue concealed carry laws proves. Morally, the government ought to allow people to protect themselves from criminals in emergency situations when the police are not on hand.
Please do implement this change in rules.
After I wrote that, I saw that others noted that the rule should allow a concealed carry permit holder from any state to carry in any national park. That's right, and I wish I had thought of that!
OK, are you sitting down? Then have a look at the cutest puppy ever . . .
This is Rubi-wan DooBeeDoo Kenobi, my 4 � month old Goldendoodle. I admit to feeling a bit self-conscious about owning a "designer dog," like it's just too precious. On the other hand, she's a little walking laboratory demonstrating the correctness of some Objectivist principles.
1. There's no such thing as animal rights. Rubi likes to sit on the floor next to my bench while I'm playing piano. When I take breaks from playing to flex my fingers we often fix our gazes adoringly at each other - as she chews the edge of my rug to bits. MY rug, not hers. Now, I know she's a puppy and I can train her out of this. Maybe. But it brought to mind a big reason I won't be respecting animal "rights" any time soon - because animals don't respect mine.
2. Man makes the world in his own image - including his dogs. Rubi also likes to pounce, even on things that aren't moving. Yesterday we gave her one of those snack bones that claims to be able to clean your dog's teeth (it gave her dog breath and diarrhea). Instead of just picking it up from the floor she pounced. My husband pointed out that wolves eat mice at least some of the time, which they catch by quietly stalking through tall grass and then pouncing on their prey. So pouncing is just the wolf coming out in Rubi - I guess we humans decided it wasn't something that needed to be bred out of them. It certainly is cute.
The point (I am getting to it), is that whatever dogs are, they were made that way by humans. Some object that dogs like Goldendoodles are bred as "accessories." But that's just a modern restatement of the reasons dogs exist at all-humans want them around. We began breeding them from wolves for their utility as well as their companionship. Now we breed more for companionship. But what's the diff? All dogs are designer dogs. Complaints about accessorizing are just a rehashed insult to the way humans operate.
So here I am, in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, happy owner of a politically-incorrect pet that has no rights. Anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my doodle.
I am non-practicing lawyer living in Brookline, Massachusetts with her husband, teenaged son, and Goldendoodle puppy. After living la vie bohème in NYC for a few years I finally went to school, where I majored in ethics and social and political philosophy at U.Mass/Boston and then got a J.D. from Harvard Law. To pay the bills I do market R & D at a high-tech firm that helps companies manage their legal compliance risks. For over 20 years I have been studying and thinking about Objectivism, with an emphasis on ethics, epistemology, economics, and lately, philosophy of law. I refuel by teaching myself piano -- right now, I'm tackling Chopin's Aeolian Harp Étude Op. 25, No. 1 in A-flat Major.
I'm hugely enthused to read her contributions to NoodleFood.
Whether you are new to Rand or a veteran student of Objectivism, our sessions will be valuable to you: we'll go through the entire system, with the experienced folks refining their understanding and ability to articulate and apply the ideas, while the newer folks grapple with the ideas and ask all the right questions. So please don't be shy about jumping in -- the reading and meeting load is light, and you'll be working with a great group of people!
We'll begin the weekly sessions for OPAR on Sunday May 18, 7:30pm Mountain time, reviewing and discussing about two sections per meeting. I'll almost always be moderating to keep us on track. And as we go, each section will have two volunteers at the helm of the discussion (maybe you!): one reviewing the material, and one playing Devil's Advocate to stimulate productive engagement. Everyone else can join in as desired to flesh out our picture of important elements and connections, explanations and applications, and to bring questions and concerns for us all to grapple with.
The IRS decides to audit Ralph, and summons him to the IRS office. The IRS auditor is not surprised when Ralph shows up with his attorney.
The auditor says, "Well, sir, you have an extravagant lifestyle and no full-time employment, which you explain by saying that you win money gambling. I'm not sure the IRS finds that believable."
"I'm a great gambler, and I can prove it," says Ralph. "How about a demonstration?" The auditor thinks for a moment and said, "Okay. Go ahead."
Ralph says, "I'll bet you a thousand dollars that I can bite my own eye."
The auditor thinks a moment and says, "It's a bet."
Ralph removes his glass eye and bites it. The auditor's jaw drops.
Ralph says, "Now, I'll bet you two thousand dollars that I can bite my other eye." Now the auditor can tell Ralph isn't blind, so he takes the bet.
Ralph removes his dentures and bites his good eye. The stunned auditor now realizes he has wagered and lost three grand, with Ralph's attorney as a witnes s. He starts to get nervous.
"Want to go double or nothing?" Ralph asks "I'll bet you six thousand dollars that I can stand on one side of your desk, and pee into that wastebasket on the other side, and never get a drop anywhere in between."
The auditor, twice burned, is cautious now, but he looks carefully and decides there's no way this guy could possibly manage that stunt, so he agrees again.
Ralph stands beside the desk and unzips his pants, but although he strains mightily, he can't make the stream reach the wastebasket on the other side, so he pretty much urinates all over the auditor's desk.
The auditor leaps with joy, realizing that he has just turned a major loss into a huge win. But Ralph's attorney moans and puts his head in his hands. "Are you okay?" the auditor asks.
"Not really," says the attorney. "This morning, when Ralph told me he'd been summoned for an audit, he bet me twenty-five thousand dollars that he could come in here and piss all over your desk and that you'd be happy about it."
May Day in Colorado By Diana Hsieh @ 9:14 AM
Here in Colorado, Mother Nature likes to toy with us in the spring. Yesterday, it was 70 degrees. Today (and tomorrow), it's snow:
More NoodleFoodlers? By Diana Hsieh @ 8:09 AM
I'm interested in adding another blogger or two to NoodleFood. I'm looking for someone with a solid grasp of Objectivism, careful habits of thought, thoroughgoing commitments to honesty and justice, and a good sense of fun. I'll probably need to know any potential NoodleFoodler already, at least from some internet writings. (Or, the person can be a "guest blogger" for a month or so.)
Any potential NoodleFoodler should be willing to write at least a few posts per month. The posts need not be deeply philosophical, but they should be informative, thought-provoking, and/or entertaining. In general, posts should be commentaries of less than 1000 words, not long essays. Even shorter posts are fine.
NoodleFood is wholly my blog, to which some other fine folks contribute. I definitely value the input of my fellow bloggers, but I am the final authority in all Noodle-ish matters. So I act as the editor of the blog: posts are published by me only after I review them. In case of serious disagreement, I retain the right to refuse to publish a post. However, that's never happened. Usually, disagreements are minor. In such cases, I discuss the problem with the author before posting, in the hope of making some mutually satisfactory changes. If no such agreement can be reached, I might express my own views in a note at the bottom of the post or in the comments.
Any new blogger must be approved by all existing NoodleFoodlers.
If you're interested, please drop me an e-mail with a link to some relevant writings and/or a sample post or two, plus any other relevant information.
Another NetFlix Free Trial By Diana Hsieh @ 10:20 PM
If you're interested in trying out the fabulous NetFlix DVD rental service, you can get a free trial while throwing a bonus rental to Paul and me. The offer expires on June 15th. (Last time I posted this kind of offer from NetFlix, Paul and I enjoyed a few extra movies.)
I must complain that I find this depiction of the two superheroes to be grossly unrealistic: everyone knows that Superman comes from the DC Comics world, whereas Spiderwoman comes from the Marvel Comics universe. (Via MeFi.)
I want to thank The Gazette for its editorial advocating concealed carry on campus ("UCCS students want their guns," Our View, April 13).
I'm a graduate student instructor at CU Boulder. Since 2001 I've been licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Colorado. Every time I hear of a new school shooting, I worry that some psychopath might unleash his rage on my campus. University policy forbids any firearms on campus. I obey that policy but it won't stop a killer from waltzing onto campus armed to the teeth. So if my students and I were in his path, we could only cower in fear in a corner of the classroom, helplessly waiting for him to kill us.
If the university respected my concealed carry permit, my good aim could protect my students from such an unthinkable end. Since I'm a law-abiding citizen trained in the proper use of firearms, my gun poses no danger whatsoever to other peaceful people.
CU's anti-gun policy is wrong. It ought to be changed, not just in Colorado Springs, but in Boulder, too.
I applaud the efforts of the UCCS chapter of Concealed Carry on Campus.
Such efforts are just starting at Boulder, too. Students and parents wanting to advocate concealed carry at CU Boulder should contact Jim Manley at james.m.manley@colorado.edu.
Thanks to political activism by gun rights advocates over past 25 years, 36 states in the US now have laws mandating "shall issue" concealed carry permits -- meaning that any law-abiding citizen with appropriate training can obtain a permit, without any further permission from local law enforcement. (I've had a concealed carry permit since 2001.) Contrary to the frantic cries of anti-gun liberals, the streets have not run with blood -- precisely because concealed carry permit holders are not criminals but rather responsible, law-abiding citizens who use their weapons in emergency situations to defend themselves from criminals.