| Friday, November 14, 2008 |
 |
How The GOP Lost My Vote
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:16 AM   
The November 13, 2008 Denver Post published my OpEd on the Republican Party in the online edition:"How the GOP lost my vote"
After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, "Why did we lose?"
I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.
I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.
But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans" embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.
Instead, the government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party's embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.
If a woman chooses not to have an abortion for reasons of personal faith, then I completely respect her right to do so. But she cannot impose her particular religious views on others. Other women must have the same right to decide that deeply personal issue for themselves.
The Religious Right's goal of outlawing abortions would violate that important right, and sacrifice the lives of actual women for clumps of cells that are only potential (but not yet actual) human beings, based on religious dogma. As a physician, I find that position abhorrent and deeply anti-life.
In his October 24, 2008 radio broadcast, Rush Limbaugh told pro-choice secular supporters of limited government such as myself that we should leave the Republican Party. Many of us have already taken his advice and changed our affiliation to "independent."
The Republican Party stands at an important crossroads. The Republican Party could choose to follow the principles of the American Founding Fathers and promote a limited government that protected individual rights but otherwise left people alone to live their lives.
This includes affirming the principle of the separation of church and state. If they did so, I would happily support it.
Or the Republican Party could instead choose to become the party of the Religious Right and seek to forcibly impose the religious values of one particular constituency over others (thus violating everyone else's rights).
In that case, it will continue to alienate many voters and lose elections -- and deservedly so.
Even though I no longer regard myself as a Republican, I definitely regard myself as a loyal American.
My parents immigrated legally from Taiwan to America over 40 years ago. They had very little money, but they worked hard, sent two children to college and medical school, and are now enjoying a well-earned and comfortable retirement.
Their life has been a real-life embodiment of the American dream. America is a beacon of hope to millions of people around the world precisely because our system of government allows honest, hard-working people to prosper and thrive.
Our system is a testament to the genius of the Founding Fathers, who recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights.
This is the America that brought my parents from a ocean away in hopes of a better life for themselves and their children. This is the America I want to live in. And this is the America I want the Republican Party to stand for.
Paul Hsieh is a practicing physician in the south Denver metro area and co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). He lives in Sedalia. Labels: Activism, Politics, Religion
|
| |
 E-mail Paul Hsieh
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments [13] (New Page)
|
|
| Wednesday, November 12, 2008 |
|
Walking Cultural Activism: One Nation
By Greg Perkins @ 4:55 PM
Tammy and I thought it would be great to produce a series of T-shirt designs for those occasions when it is appropriate to wear our ideas on our sleeves. Bonus points if they aren't just provocative but actually spark some good engagement!Here are two designs that respond to the religionists who called on Congress to edit our nation's official Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's to include the phrase "under God" -- along with all those today who smile on that and wrongly insist that our great nation was founded on religious ideals. (Just click through to BoltOfReason.Com to check out all the available styles and colors. We of course love suggestions and requests -- we're already working on a lot of fun ideas, and if you are the first to hit us with a new one that we use in a future shirt design, you'll get one for free!) Labels: Activism, Cool, Shameless Commerce Division
|
| |
E-mail Greg Perkins
PermaLink ()
Comments [8] (New Page)
|
|
| Friday, November 07, 2008 |
|
Alan Greenspan Is Not John Galt
By Diana Hsieh @ 5:23 PM
John Lewis published an excellent letter to the editor on Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand in the News & Observer yesterday:
Wrong Analogy
In Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," her hero, John Galt, refuses to accept the position of economic dictator. Alan Greenspan accepted such a position as head of the government's central bank, and his dictates were enforced over an economy burdened with thousands of pages of regulations.
Greenspan's own flawed ideas have nothing in common with Rand's philosophy. Nor was the U.S. economy ever set free of government control. Had Froma Harrop (Other Opinion, Oct. 30) discussed the content of Rand's philosophy along with the actual state of business regulation, this would have been clear.
John David Lewis, Durham Great letter, John!Labels: Activism, Finance
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [3] (New Page)
|
|
|
Credentials for Activism
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:22 AM
Paul and I recently received the following inquiry from Miranda Barzey. I thought it of general interest, so I'm posting it and our replies here, with her permission. Miranda wrote:
What's the importance of credentials when writing or arguing for a cause? Is it important to have an MD or PHD when trying to persuade other people of an idea's creedence, namely Objectivism? Can an average, everyday, YOUNG person make an argument and be taken seriously without the pieces of paper backing them up? What about when trying to reach a large group of people? It just seems to me that a good argument is a good argument despite the background of the person giving it. What do you think? Paul wrote the following in reply:
That's an excellent question, Miranda! Here's my quick 2 cents' worth:
For technical subjects (law, medicine, engineering), the credential helps somewhat. If I needed to resolve a biochemistry argument, I'd definitely give more weight to someone with a PhD in biochemistry than someone with a masters' degree in English Literature.
For public policy, it's helps a little bit. But mostly it's a proxy marker to show that the person has done some level of advanced education and thus presumably is not just some random person with an opinion.
Of course we all know that this sort of proxy may have very little to do with the merits of the argument. For example, there are Nobel Prize winners in economics (like Paul Krugman) who support all sorts of bad ideas like "universal health care", when they should know better.
Yes, ultimately it's the quality of the argument that should matter. And it usually does. But for better or worse, the credential might help you get an initial hearing. But in sustained debates and discussions with a fair-minded audience, the quality of arguments (including reasoning and evidence used) and often the tone/demeanor (especially on the internet) make more difference in the end. And I wrote:
This is a great question to pose to the OActivists list. You're welcome to join it, if you meet the list qualifications.
Let me just say the following, in addition to what Paul said:
It's hard to have credibility as a young person: I've noticed that people take me more seriously in my 30s than they did in my 20s, even when my views haven't changed one iota.
What every speaker needs is credibility -- at least to get his/her foot in the door. An audience needs some reason to think that this person will have something interesting and informed to say, rather than just a bunch of ill-conceived opinions. A degree can provide that, as can personal experience or proven expertise (e.g. working in a field for some years, authoring an issue paper, etc).
That kind of credibility is hard for a young person to gain, precisely because they're young. However, you need not be discouraged. A great deal of really important activism is totally (or mostly) blind to credentials. If you write a letter to the editor or web comment, no one will know how old you are. The same goes if you write an op-ed. (For an op-ed, I would definitely draw on people who do have experience in a given field -- i.e. act like a journalist in part -- to give your writing more credibility and power.)
Finally, I should mention that pursuing an advanced degree -- particularly one that will give you a title -- requires years of grueling work. So I don't recommend doing that unless you have a real interest in the topic and eagerness to learn it. The work is just too hard to do for a mere piece of paper. Further thoughts?Labels: Activism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [4] (New Page)
|
|
|
A Good Day
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:38 AM
Today is a good day.
(1) Last night, I finished the first draft of the fifth chapter of my dissertation. It was a 43-page chapter articulating, developing, and defending Aristotle's theory of moral responsibility. I've now written 148 pages, and I probably have about 80 left to write, in the form of the final three chapters applying my Aristotelian account of moral responsibility to the various cases of circumstantial, resultant, and constitutive moral luck. I'm going to have to crank them out fast -- before the end of the calendar year. (For some background on my dissertation, see this post on my prospectus.)
(2) The Rocky Mountain News unexpectedly published my op-ed against Colorado's Amendment 48 in defense of abortion rights today. You can read it -- and leave a comment -- here: There's nothing wrong with abortion, but 48 is wrong. (That's not my title, but I'm not complaining.)
(3) In celebration, I'm going to take today off. I have a slew of household chores to catch up on, plus some fun cooking to do. I'll be making homemade applesauce, as well as roasting the seeds from one of the delicious pumpkins I grew in my garden this year.Labels: Abortion, Activism, Dissertation
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [9] (New Page)
|
|
| Saturday, November 01, 2008 |
|
ABC News on Obama, Ayn Rand, and Selfishness
By Paul Hsieh @ 4:00 PM
Yesterday (October 31, 2008), ABC News posted a story on Barack Obama's defense of higher taxes and his explicit attack against "selfishness".
The news story also mentioned Ayn Rand and her book The Virtue of Selfishness, including hyperlinks to the book and the ARI.
Numerous non-Objectivist blogs have also linked to the ABC story, mostly in support. I think this is an excellent opportunity for Objectivists to add to the public discussion in defense of limited government, individual rights, and egoism.
It's probably not worth adding a comment to the ABC story itself, because there are well over 1000 comments there already. But you can easily leave comments on blogs that are covering the story. For instance, using Google to search for "'ayn rand' selfish obama", I found the following:
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22ayn%20rand%22%20selfish%20obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wb
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22ayn+rand%22+selfish+obama&btnG=Google+Search
You can then click through to go to various blogs/websites, many of which allow comments.
I've left versions of the following comment on several of them:The kind of selfishness that Ayn Rand advocated (and which Obama apparently opposes) is a completely noble and moral American virtue. This country was founded on the principle that men and women had the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" free from government interference and tyranny.
Many immigrants (such as my parents) came to this country precisely to be able to work hard, prosper, and give their children a chance for a better life. They came to this country with little more than the clothes on their back, but did well over the years, sent two children to college and medical school, and are now enjoying a well-earned and comfortable retirement. Their lives have been a real-life embodiment of the American dream.
If we want America to remain a beacon of hope to millions around the world, we should re-affirm our commitment to free markets and capitalism, and reject calls for more socialism and "redistribution of wealth".
This country is great precisely because it allows people like my parents to attain selfish goals such as their lives and happiness. Americans should be proud of that fact, not condemn it. If you've composed something on this topic that you like, then this is a good way to defend Ayn Rand and rational egoism with a minimum of additional effort.Labels: Activism, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [35] (New Page)
|
|
| Tuesday, October 28, 2008 |
|
Hsieh LTE in The Economist
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:35 AM
The October 23, 2008 edition of The Economist has printed another LTE of mine, this time on Massachusetts' health care "reform". This one is in the print edition (as opposed to my first LTE there which was online-only.)
They did minor editing, but kept the central meaning intact. The letter is the 4th one down:Freedom to choose
SIR – The Massachusetts system of "universal" health care remains afloat only because of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal support ("In need of desperate remedies", October 18th). One reason costs are so high in Massachusetts is that individuals are forced to purchase benefits they neither need nor want. Under any system of mandatory insurance, the state must necessarily define what constitutes an acceptable insurance policy, meaning that individuals are buying insurance on terms influenced by lobbyists and bureaucrats, rather than based on a rational assessment of their needs. If the federal government adopts the Massachusetts system on a national scale, it would merely multiply those problems fifty-fold.
Dr Paul Hsieh
Co-founder Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine
Sedalia, Colorado Labels: Activism, Health Care
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [2] (New Page)
|
|
| Monday, October 27, 2008 |
|
OList Mailing Lists
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:24 AM
A few days ago, I realized that I ought to occasionally post a reminder about my various OList mailing lists. So without further ado...
OList.com is the home of three specialized e-mail lists for Objectivists, all to help promote Objectivist ideas in the culture at large:
- OActivists: OActivists is an informal e-mail list for Objectivists committed to fostering positive cultural and political change. Its purpose is to facilitate and encourage effective advocacy of Objectivist ideas in non-Objectivist forums by facilitating communication with other Objectivist activists. Posts to the list alert subscribers to opportunities to speak out, recommend sources of information, discuss effective arguments and principled strategies, reproduce op-eds and letters written by subscribers, announce events, and more. Click here for a full description of this list and its membership requirements.
- OBloggers: OBloggers is an informal mailing list for Objectivist bloggers. Its basic purpose is to facilitate communication about matters of mutual interest, such as upcoming events, posts of interest, best blogging practices, and the like. Click here for a full description of this list and its membership requirements.
- OAcademics: OAcademics is a forum for Objectivist academics to discuss teaching, research, coursework, dissertations, job prospects, publication, and all other aspects of life in (or after) academia. The list is basically a means of sharing knowledge and experience as ever more Objectivists enter academia. Click here for a full description of this list and its membership requirements.
Please feel free to join if you're interested, provided that you meet the criteria for membership.Labels: Activism, Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [0] (New Page)
|
|
| Saturday, October 25, 2008 |
|
Economic Freedom Is Threatened By Both Obama and McCain
By Diana Hsieh @ 2:52 PM
Nick Provenzo of Rule of Reason writes:
A short op-ed I wrote for Fox News' Fox Forum on the threat either a McCain or Obama presidency poses to freedom is the featured commentary for the weekend. I argued that both Obama and McCain are "equally dangerous for economic freedom in America" and that "on every question, both men share the same corrupt moral premise, differing only in degree and their particular focus."
I encourage you to leave a comment there adding your own thoughts. The URL is:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/opposingviews_1024/ I also encourage you to write a comment! You can also give it a "thumbs up" via StumbleUpon. Here's Paul's comment:
Thank you, Nick, for a well-argued essay!
Dr. Malcom G refers to a superb lecture by Leonard Peikoff entitled, "Health Care Is Not A Right" from 1993.
There's an updated (2007) version of his talk available at the website for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine at:
"Health Care Is Not A Right"
http://www.westandfirm.org/Peikoff-01.html
To add to Nick's point, the biggest problem in modern American politics is the failure to recognize what individual rights are.
Rights are freedoms of actions (such as the right to free speech), not automatic claims on goods and services that must be produced by others. Individuals are legitimately entitled to services such as health care that they purchase with their own money, are promised by prior contractual agreements, or are given to them via voluntary charity.
Otherwise, government programs to guarantee health care as a "right" must necessarily violate someone's actual rights - either the rights of those compelled to provide medical care or the rights of those compelled to pay for it. Such programs then become just another form of state-sanctioned slavery or theft.
Both McCain and Obama suffer from this faulty understanding of individual rights. Both would use the power of government to trample on legitimate rights (such as the right to free speech) as well as to attempt to guarantee false entitlement "rights".
Unless Americans reaffirm the proper conception of rights as freedoms of actions (and concomitant limitations on government powers), then we'll continue our current downhill slide. A civilization will collapse if citizens decide that they can vote each other goodies from the government trough, at the expense of those who produce such goods.
The Romans learned this lesson the hard way. The big question is whether Americans will also learn this lesson before it's too late.
Paul Hsieh, MD
Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM)
http://www.WeStandFIRM.org If you post a comment, you're welcome to repost it in the NoodleFood comments.Labels: Activism, Election, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [7] (New Page)
|
|
| Thursday, October 16, 2008 |
|
Pro-Life Feminist?
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:12 PM
Today, the Christian Science Monitor published an excellent letter to the editor by William Stoddard, a much-valued NoodleFood commenter. As published, it reads:
Regarding the Oct. 14 Opinion piece, "Amid Palin hype, a pro-life feminist's dilemma": "Pro-life feminism" is a contradiction in terms. A woman who would deprive other women of control over their own bodies, by legally compelling them to carry pregnancies to term against their will, is not a credible advocate of women's rights.
Abortion is not an easy choice for any woman, and it would be a good thing if the need for it were minimized through conscientious use of contraception. But the claim that a fetus is a person under the law has intolerable implications. A fetal "right to life" would define doctors who perform abortions, and women who undergo them, as murderers. This would be the case even for women who became pregnant through rape, or who were carrying profoundly defective children.
The law should protect the pregnant woman's right to decide what to do. Any other policy is opposed both to feminism and to the broader concept of individual rights.
William H. Stoddard
San Diego
Unfortunately, it's not available online yet. (It was definitely printed today, as I have a hard copy in front of me. Paul subscribes, as it's a great little newspaper.)Labels: Abortion, Activism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [9] (New Page)
|
|
|
New Web Site: Repeal the Bailout
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:17 PM
A most welcome message from Tony Donadio, posted to OActivists last week:
In response to last week's passage of the financial bailout legislation, I've taken the liberty of acquiring the domain name repealthebailout.net and creating a rudimentary website. It can be found here:
www.repealthebailout.net
Right now, it's more or less just a skeleton, consisting mainly of links to various articles on the subject. However, I have a strong suspicion that last week's bailout isn't the last one we're going to be facing, and that the website may continue to be relevant for some time to come. I plan to try to update it steadily as my (unfortunately limited) time allows, both with original material and with new and timely links.
I'm interested in feedback and thoughts on what I've (hastily) thrown together so far, so please feel free to respond to me (preferably directly, so as not to clutter the list) if you have any. I'm also interested in new and useful links as well as original contributions if you have any to offer or suggest.
Thanks -- Tony Donadio Tony has done a fantastic job with Repeal the Bailout. Kudos to him! Please do point people to it in any writing you do about the financial crisis, e.g. in e-mail discussions, comments on news stories, comments on blogs, and the like.
Such small sites focused on some current issue -- like my even smaller Vote No on 59 -- are relatively easy to create, maintain, and promote. They can get a steady stream of search traffic, as shown by the stats of No on 59. (See the visits and referrals.) They're an effective and enduring form of activism for just a few hours of your time.
Notably, because of Vote No on 59, Ari Armstrong was interviewed by the local news for a segment on Amendment 59 on Tuesday. It was shown at 5:30 and again at 9:00; you can watch it here. (The reporter called me due to the web site, and I pointed her to Ari, as he's more knowledgeable than me.) That's an unusually good result, but certainly possible in a busy election season! In the meantime, over 100 interested Colorado voters each day are reading why they should vote "No" on this permanent tax hike.
You can make a difference -- if you speak out!Labels: Activism, Economics, Finance, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [8] (New Page)
|
|
| Tuesday, October 14, 2008 |
|
A Slender Silver Lining to the Bailout?
By Paul Hsieh @ 2:02 PM
Although the economic crisis and subsequent bailout are going to be painful for our country, there may be a very slender silver lining -- namely that the loss of money will likely derail some plans for more big government programs.
Here are a two recent examples, one in health care and the other in "green" legislation:"After Bailout, What Will Health Reform Look Like?"
A growing number of experts have abandoned all hopes of major health reform. "The bailout makes it that much tougher, because health care will be crowded out by other issues," said Drew Altman, president and CEO of Kaiser Family Foundation... And,"Efforts on global warming chilled by economic woes"
The economic free fall gripping the nation may bring down one of the main environmental objectives: capping the greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming. ...[T]he focus on stabilizing the economy probably will make it more difficult to pass a law to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. At the very least, it will push back when the reductions would have to start. These stories suggest that even if a President Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress wanted to implement these bad ideas, they probably wouldn't be able to do so immediately, purely because of cost.
(It was similar economic constraints that stopped California from imposing "universal health care" at the state level last year, even though the Democratic state legislature and Republican Governor Schwarzenegger were both strongly in favor of it.)
Obviously, this would just be a temporary reprieve -- the liberals' underlying bad ideology has not changed. And I fully recognize that there are plenty of other bad laws that both the Left and the Right could propose (such as restrictions on free speech) that wouldn't require much money to implement.
But the economic downturn could buy us a little more time to continue the fight for good ideas. Let's not waste it...
Update: This New York Times column by David Brooks argues the opposite -- that an Obama admininistration would use the financial crisis as the pretext for massively increased government spending, despite the fact that the country will not be able to afford it.
Either way, I think we'll have our work cut out for us...Labels: Activism, Economics, Finance, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [5] (New Page)
|
|
|
Fight for Rights, Not Deregulation?
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:10 PM
Ari Armstrong recently posted some thought-provoking comments on how to effectively argue for free markets. His reflections were prompted by the vice-presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. He writes:
Palin called for "government strict oversight," implying that the problem was caused by a lack of such oversight, rather than the presence of foolish federal controls. ...
Biden's message is that the free market doesn't work, deregulation equals the free market, deregulation has failed, and government controls are the alternative to deregulation.
Unfortunately, Republicans often have used the term "deregulation" because they don't want to talk about the fundamental issue: individual rights. Because they don't favor individual rights. As Bush II has proved, Republicans (in general, not in every particular) are enthusiastic about government controls and political power.
The problem is that the term "regulation" is a package deal. "Regulation" means to make regular. Well, we want things to be regular, don't we, as opposed to irregular? For example, the Constitution grants to Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states..." Those of us of the individual-rights persuasion like to think of that clause as granting to Congress the ability to "make regular" trade; that is, to free it of state interference.
Government plays a crucial regulatory role. The proper role of government is to protect individual rights. In the sphere of economics, that means protecting property rights and the right to contract. It means fighting fraud. It means eliminating the initiation of force. In those functions, the government regulates -- makes regular -- the economy. Protecting individual rights is regulation.
But what Biden means by "regulation" is a host of federal controls that violate, rather than protect, individual rights. These rights-violating controls do not make the economy "regular;" they make it irregular and chaotic. For example, the federal controls that forced lenders to make risky loans are "regulations" of this sort. The mortgage crisis is a crisis not of the free market, not of the regulation of protecting individual rights, but of the "regulations" of government controls that violate rights of property and contract.
What we need is not some out-of-context "deregulation" or "regulation." What we need is a government that protects individual rights rather than violates them. That is the very definition of the free market. That is what Joe Biden condemns, and what Sarah Palin cannot even conceive. Thoughts?Labels: Activism, Business, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [4] (New Page)
|
|
| Wednesday, October 08, 2008 |
|
CSG Media Release: Nearly 40% of Colorado Voters Seek to Destroy Reproductive Rights
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:00 PM
MEDIA RELEASE: COALITION FOR SECULAR GOVERNMENT
Nearly 40% of Colorado Voters Seek to Destroy Reproductive Rights
Sedalia, Colorado / October 7, 2008
Contact: Diana Hsieh, co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" and founder of the Coalition for Secular Government, Diana@SecularGovernment.us or 303.304.0689
A poll of likely voters shows strong support for Amendment 48, the ballot measure that would grant the full legal rights of persons to fertilized eggs. The survey, conducted on September 28th by Rasmussen Reports with 500 likely voters, shows that 39% plan to vote for the measure, 50% to vote against it, while 11% are unsure. (See .)
Such strong support for Amendment 48 should surprise anyone familiar with the barrage of criticism published in Colorado media in recent weeks. Critics of the measure have warned voters of its destructive effects on Colorado's laws if passed and enforced. They have shown that it would usher in a near-total ban on abortion, outlaw the birth control pill and in vitro fertilization, and subject pregnant women to police controls. Yet these latest poll results are basically unchanged from a June poll, also by Rasmussen. (See .)
Diana Hsieh, founder of the Coalition for Secular Government and co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," argues that the broad support for Amendment 48 is driven by a deeply-held faith pretending to be "pro-life."
The most recent Rasmussen poll showed that 41% of Colorado voters believe that "life begins at conception." That number explains the strong support for Amendment 48, despite the media barrage against it. "People who endorse that slogan regard a fertilized egg as a new, whole person with a right to life," Hsieh said. "They regard the enormous sacrifices forced on real men and women by the measure as insignificant -- or even ennobling. Their vote is based on faith, without regard to the real-world requirements of human life and happiness. It's not 'pro-life' at all."
"To effectively combat measures like Amendment 48, the whole 'pro-life' ideology must be challenged at its root," Hsieh said. "A mushy slogan like 'it simply goes too far' is unconvincing, even misleading. It doesn't speak to the fundamental dispute. Worse, it suggests that some compromise -- like banning most abortions -- would be acceptable."
"Instead, reproductive rights must be defended on principle, based on the objective facts of human nature. With regard to abortion, the fact is that a fetus or embryo is only a potential person so long as encased within and dependent on the woman. Once born, the infant is a new individual person with the right to life. That view ought to be the basis for the laws of a free society. Any alternative -- any attempt to grant rights to the embryo or fetus -- would violate the rights of pregnant women."
For a principled defense of reproductive rights, see the Coalition for Secular Government's issue paper, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," available at http://www.seculargovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf, particularly the section "Personhood and the Right to Abortion," pages 10-13.Labels: Abortion, Activism, Coalition for Secular Government
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [8] (New Page)
|
|
| Monday, October 06, 2008 |
|
John Lewis FROST Talk in Denver: A Call to Action
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:53 PM
If you live in Colorado, I urge you to attend this Front Range Objectivism Supper Talk with Objectivist historian John Lewis. (Notice that an RSVP is required by the 13th.)
- Speaker: Dr. John Lewis
- Talk: A Call to Action: Understanding and Defeating the EPA's Plan for Environmental Dictatorship
- Date: Saturday, October 18, 2008
- Time: 6:00 pm social hour (cash bar); 6:30-6:45 FRO Free Books For Teachers Auction; 7:00 pm dinner; 8:00 pm talk
- Location: West Woods Golf Club, 6655 Quaker Street in Arvada, Colorado
- Cost: $55.00 per individual, $30.00 for students
- RSVP by October 13th to Betty Evans via e-mail (betty@frontrangeobjectivism.com) or phone (303.421.7334). Please send your check to FROST c/o Betty Evans, 1140 US Hwy 287 STE 400-283, Broomfield, CO 80020.
About "A Call to Action: Understanding and Defeating the EPA's Plan for Environmental Dictatorship"
 On July 11, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking-the outline of a national plan to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide, a "pollutant" according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The EPA admits openly that, under this plan, the entire nation is in non-compliance, and will have to be controlled in minute detail by a maze of bureaucratic rules and procedures. The EPA has invited public comment on this plan, to which the speaker has replied with six reasons to reject these proposals categorically.
This talk will consider why non-scientists should reject claims to an imminent global disaster, and why the true disaster facing us is our own self-created political destruction. This is a moral issue, and it is only by affirming a morality proper to man's life that we can preserve and defend our freedom as sovereign moral beings. To learn more before the talk, go to http://www.classicalideals.com/EPA_Ruination.htm.
About John Lewis
John David Lewis received his PhD in Classics from the University of Cambridge. He is visiting associate professor of political science at Duke University. He has been a senior research scholar in history and classics at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, and an Anthem Fellow for Objectivist Scholarship. A writer for The Objective Standard, his books are Solon the Thinker: Political Thought in Archaic Athens, and Early Greek Lawgivers. If you haven't yet done so, I urge you to speak out on this issue. You can find out how to do so on John Lewis' web site. Here's the e-mail that I sent on Sunday:
Dear EPA Administrator --
Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318
I am completely opposed to the rules outlined in this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).
These rules are incompatible with a free society: they would grossly violate our rights as Americans to life, liberty, and property.
These rules are incompatible with science: carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a gas vital to life.
These rules are incompatible with prosperity: business and industry will be strangled by them.
Personally, I'm alarmed by the prospect of EPA regulation of the food supply. The government already does enormous harm by promoting demonstrably unhealthy foods -- particularly grains, sugars, and modern vegetable oils -- while doggedly opposing healthy foods like raw milk. More government regulation would only do more damage to the health and happiness of Americans. It would certainly be very bad news for me.
Please -- in the name of American values -- reject these rules.
-- DMH
Diana Hsieh
Sedalia, Colorado Labels: Activism, Environmentalism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [9] (New Page)
|
|
| Friday, October 03, 2008 |
|
Hsieh LTE on the Bailout
By Paul Hsieh @ 10:34 AM
The September 30, 2008 Denver Post did publish my LTE on the proposed bailout, but only in the online edition, not the print edition. (All of the LTE's on this topic were online-only.)
It's the second LTE on the page:The current financial mess is not the fault of the free market, but rather of government interference in the free market. It's clearly not in the interest of banks to loan money to people who can't pay it back. The government created artificial incentives (such as the Community Reinvestment Act) that rewarded lenders for doing so, with the implied promise that taxpayers would pick up the tab if anything went wrong. The current mess is exactly the result one would expect.
To blame the free market for problems caused by government interference in the free market is like blaming one’s automobile accident on the car, rather than the fact that one was driving while yakking on a cellphone while looking at the onboard GPS system while reaching for a stick of gum in the glove compartment...
Paul Hsieh, Sedalia For a longer discussion of this issue, see "The Long Road to Slack Lending Standards" by Steven Malanga. Here's an excerpt:Many defenders of the government's efforts to prompt banks to lend more to minorities have claimed that this effort had little to do with the present mortgage mess. Specifically they point out that many institutions that made subprime mortgages during the market bubble weren't even banks subject to the Community Reinvestment Act, the main vehicle that the feds used to cajole banks to loosen their lending.
But this defense misses the point. In order to push banks to lend more to minority borrowers, advocates like the Boston Fed put forward an entire new set of lending standards and explained to the industry just why loans based on these slacker standards were somehow safer than the industry previously thought. These justifications became the basis for a whole new set of values (or lack of values), as no-down payment loans and loans to people with poor credit history or to those who were already loaded up with debt became more common throughout the entire industry.
What happened in the mortgage industry is an example of how, in trying to eliminate discrimination from our society, we turned logic on its head. Instead of nobly trying to ensure equality of opportunity for everyone, many civil rights advocates tried to use the government to ensure equality of outcomes for everyone in the housing market. And so when faced with the idea that minorities weren't getting approved for enough mortgages because they didn't measure up as often to lending standards, the advocates told us that the standards must be discriminatory and needed to be junked. When lenders did that, we made heroes out of those who led the way, like Angelo Mozilo, before we made villains of them.
Now we all have to pay. A deliberate policy of elevating "lack of value" above value sounds almost like something from Atlas Shrugged. The end results certainly looks like it...Labels: Activism, Economics, Finance, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [0] (New Page)
|
|
| Wednesday, October 01, 2008 |
|
More Bailout-O-Rama
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:51 AM
The Senate has a new $700 billion bailout plan that they're voting on today:
Top lawmakers said the Senate proposal, worked out after a day of behind the scenes maneuvering, would include tax breaks for businesses and alternative energy and higher government insurance for bank deposits. We do need to speak up against this new bailout plan. The market crash after the defeat of the bill in the House caused some to think that a bailout would be a good idea:
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate banking committee, said the Senate decided to move quickly, citing signs of regret from some House members after the markets plunged in response to their initial vote.
"I think their will is coming back having heard from their constituents," Mr. Dodd said.
Lawmakers said the stock market response to the rejection was a sobering experience that could enhance prospects for a revised plan. Some anxiety lifted on Tuesday, as the Dow Jones industrial average rose 485 points, regaining more than half of the 778 points it lost on Monday.
...
On the morning after the sell-off on Wall Street, Congressional offices reported a shift in angry calls from constituents, with some now demanding that lawmakers take some corrective action -- a distinct change from the outpouring of public opposition that contributed to the defeat of the plan.
"I started hearing from a lot of people who lost money on their investments thanks to the big drop on Wall Street yesterday," said Representative Steven C. LaTourette, Republican of Ohio, who voted against the plan. So even if you already wrote or called your Senators, contact them again to tell them that you still oppose the bailout.
Also, the Ayn Rand Center has created a page of great resources on the bailout:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_financial_crisis
Feel free to make good use of it in your activism on this issue -- not only by informing yourself but also by posting the link in comments on news articles, forwarding it to friends, including it in e-mails to representatives, and so on. Here's ARC's announcement:
The Ayn Rand Center Responds to the Financial Crisis
September 30, 2008
Americans are now facing an historic economic crisis. What was the cause? What is the cure? How do we prevent it from happening again?
While pundits and politicians blame the current housing and financial crisis on "greedy" businessmen and lax regulators, and are frantically urging the government to expand its control over our economic lives, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights has launched a new Web page to defend a different view--that the actual cause of the crisis is government intervention, and the only cure, laissez-faire capitalism.
We invite you to check out our collection of essays, op-eds, lectures, and interviews arguing for a rational approach to this crisis--an approach you will not find anywhere else. Labels: Activism, Economics, Finance, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [11] (New Page)
|
|
| Saturday, September 27, 2008 |
|
Opposing the Bailout
By Paul Hsieh @ 3:00 PM
If you want to let your elected officials know that you oppose the $700 billion Bush Bailout of Wall Street, you can use this website to send them an e-mail.
For example, Rob Abiera has sent the following excellent letter to his elected officials:Dear *** SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE XXX ***
I am writing as a constituent to ask you to oppose the Bush Administration's request for $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. The healthiest thing for our economy would be to allow the market to work and let those firms deal privately with the consequences of their own actions. I don't believe in accepting responsibility for other people's actions and I have no desire to see my taxes used to help some Wall Street firms out of a situation which they created, not me. The answer to the current economic situation is not handouts to Wall Street tied to more regulations. The answer is to get the government OUT of the economy.
I'm sure that I disagree with Senator DeMint of South Carolina on other issues, but on this issue I have seen no better statement of the truth about this situation than his recent press release.
In this instance, Senator DeMint speaks for me, as well.
*** YOUR NAME ***
*** YOUR ADDRESS *** Rob also included the text of Senator DeMint's Press release.
I liked Rob's letter a lot, and I've already sent similar e-mails to my own Senators and Representative.
BTW, Alex Epstein has a good piece on the bailout on the Fox News website, "The Bailout: Just a $700 Billion Hedge Fund?"
Update from Diana:
I send the following letter to my representatives, plus various other politicians and officials:
Dear So-And-So,
I'm writing to tell you that I strongly oppose any bailout of Wall Street.
The current crisis was created by government controls and regulations. The only rational solution is to allow the market to correct itself by allowing full freedom of trade. The ban on shorting financial stocks should be lifted now: the markets cannot function properly without shorting. The government should not bail out any Wall Street firms -- nor anyone else. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's irresponsibility.
Then, to preserve economic health in the long run, all of the myriad anti-capitalist controls on the markets must be repealed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be totally privatized. The Community Reinvestment Act must be repealed.
Do not blame the current crisis on the free markets. Such crises are the inevitable product of a dangerous hybrid of capitalist markets and government controls. More government meddling will only exacerbate the problem. The only real solution is to move to a fully free market in which the government upholds and protects the rights to property and contract. Only then will every person be free to act on his own rational judgment in pursuit of his own wealth, security, and happiness. That's what America should be all about. I sent that to:
| |
