| Tuesday, May 27, 2008 |
 |
Turning Off the Lights of the World
By Paula @ 1:40 AM   
Ayn Rand's masterpiece Atlas Shrugged ends when the lights go out in the world:
The plane was above the peaks of the skyscrapers when suddenly, with the abruptness of a shudder, as if the ground had parted to engulf it, the city disappeared from the face of the earth. It took them a moment to realize that the panic had reached the power stations---and that the lights of New York had gone out. . . .
She remembered the story Francisco had told her: "He had quit the Twentieth Century. He was living in a garret in a slum neighborhood. He stepped to the window and pointed at the skyscrapers of the city. He said that we had to extinguish the lights of the world, and when we would see the lights of New York go out, we would know that our job was done." In the novel, the lights go out as a result of willful evasion -- the refusal of the world's leaders to acknowledge that it is the power of the mind to reform nature in its own image that keeps the world alight. Evil enough, as far as it goes.
Now it's worse. Now there are people actively looking for the world's light switch and positively salivating at the prospect of flipping it off.
Many commentators, not just at NoodleFood, have identified the man-hating irrationality in the leadership of the environmental movement. (For example, see NoodleFood here; see The Ayn Rand Institute here and here.) But I speak of a new horror: the advent of lawsuits charging specific companies with responsibility for global warming and demanding compensation for damages. This phenomenon unites an unholy trinity of destructive factions: the acolytes of the environmental movement; fear-ridden and pandering lawmakers; and those prepared to cash in on the regulatory scheme resulting from the self-reinforcing lunacy of the first two -- the plaintiff's bar.
Kivalina is an Inupiat Eskimo village in Alaska. As of the 2000 U.S. Census, over one-quarter of Kivalina's residents lived below the poverty line. In 2006 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers described Kivalina as follows:
Kivalina is home to 402 residents, who live in very overcrowded conditions in just over 70 homes. The community is predominately Alaska Native, and residents depend on subsistence activities for a majority of their caloric intake. The community does not have a piped water or sewer system, except for running/piped water in its school and washeteria. Residents rely on self-haul water and on honey buckets for human waste. 
The village is experiencing catastrophic coastal erosion; ice which used to prevent shore damage from fall and winter storms has been melting. Unsurprising, given its location, shown above (New Orleans, anyone?). To continue its existence, the village must relocate. The U.S. Army Corps of engineers estimates it will cost anywhere between $150 - $250 million.
Kivalina is suing energy companies for $400 million.
Two non-profits, the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment have filed suit on behalf of Kivalina against 24 energy companies. The nonprofits have teamed up with -- wait for it -- attorneys who successfully sued big tobacco companies. If the suit is succesful, the attorneys' fees will be about 30% to 40% of the recovery. Meaning that what's left for the plaintiffs will be pretty much the amount the U.S. Army thinks it will cost to relocate the village. Pretty neat how that works out, eh?
The Atlantic Monthly writes:
[T]he suit also accuses eight of the firms (American Electric Power, BP America, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Peabody Energy, and Southern Company) of conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, in much the same way the tobacco industry tried to conceal the risks of smoking—by using a series of think tanks and other organizations to falsely sow public doubt in an emerging scientific consensus. In other words, attorneys plan to throw the tobacco playbook at rich energy companies. The message the case wishes to convey is that energy companies knowingly caused global warming and must pay for the damage they've wrought by selling the fossil fuels that provide the world with energy.
There is no scientific consensus on the extent or causation of global warming (putting it charitably). But that is not the biggest problem with the lawsuit. The real problem is that to the extent the lawsuit is successful, it brings mankind closer to the squalid standard of living of the population of Kivalina.
The ability to use fossil fuels for our own benefit is the predominant reason humans enjoy the standard of living that we do. And it's not like this is a big secret: witness developing nations' persistent objections to global emissions policies on the grounds that their priority is economic development.
So here we have the spectacle of million-dollar attorneys . . .
. . . driving their fossil-fueled cars to work
. . . where they'll work well into the night in offices brightly lit using energy provided by the companies they're suing
. . . after which they'll go home to luxurious houses made comfortable through the use of energy to warm and cool their environment
. . . and enjoy a quality of life that would not exist but for the energy companies their lawsuits could put out of business.
There is a terrific irony here. The residents of Kivalina have a subsistence economy. The difference between a subsistence economy and the standard of living most Americans take for granted is based on the use and technology of energy. It takes energy to create factories that manufacture plumbing pipes and pre-packaged food, and it would take energy to transport these conveniences of modern life all the way up to Alaska by air, sea and land. But after lawsuits like this one have destroyed energy companies by wringing billions of dollars out of them on the grounds they've covered up evidence that does not exist, we may all end up living like the residents of Kivalina.Labels: Environmentalism, Law
 E-mail Paula
 PermaLink
 Comments
 BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, May 15, 2008 |
|
McCain: Carbon Dictator
By Paul Hsieh @ 3:02 AM
Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain recently made a number of alarming statements about his approach to the "global warming" issue. In particular, on May 12, 2008 he stated that, "he would pursue mandatory U.S. curbs on greenhouse gas emissions if he wins the White House in November". This is not the first time that he has expressed such views. During the Republican candidates' debate of May 2007, he defended his policy along lines similar to Pascal's Wager:Now, suppose that [California Governor Schwarzenneger] and I are wrong, and there's no such thing as climate change. And we adopt these green technologies, of which America and the innovative skills we have and the entrepreneurship and the free market, which is embodied by Senator Lieberman's and my cap-and-trade proposal, is enacted, and there's no such thing as climate change. Then all we've done is give our kids a cleaner world.
But suppose we do nothing. Suppose we do nothing and we don't eliminate this $400 billion dependence we have on foreign oil. Some of that money goes to terrorist organizations and also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Then what kind of a world have we given our children? Of course, McCain's argument omits the hundreds of billions of dollars of economic harm caused by implementing draconian policies that limit industry and commerce, as well as the countless harms done to individuals by prohibiting then from engaging in productive free enterprise.
McCain's statements put him squarely in the camp of the "global warming authoritarians" as described by Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute. Although he poses as a defender of "entrepreneurship and the free market", he clearly has no objection to an environmentalist agenda that is fundamentally inimical to human life. Those who support McCain over one of the Democrats on the grounds that he is somehow "better" than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama may need to look more closely at what McCain really stands for.Labels: Environmentalism, Politics
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments
BloggerThis
|
| 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
BloggerThis
|
| Friday, January 11, 2008 |
|
More Cool Nuclear Technology
By Paul Hsieh @ 11:17 AM
Who wouldn't want one of these?A Battery That Can Power a Whole Town
Nuclear "batteries" are nothing new. Energy from a fist-size lump of plutonium has powered the Voyager spacecraft for 25 years. And tiny specks of the stuff kept pacemakers ticking for decades. Now, Hyperion Power Generation (HPG) is developing a nuclear battery capable of powering a town. The size of a hot tub, it can put out more than 25 megawatts for five years, enough to run 25,000 homes.
Building on technology developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Santa Fe (N.M.) startup's battery runs on uranium hydride, which acts as fuel and also regulates power output, making it virtually impossible for the battery to suffer a meltdown. With no moving parts to break or corrode, HPG's batteries can be buried in the earth for added security and safety. Their small size makes them easy to install and, later, to remove and refuel, cutting out the need to handle radioactive materials on site.
HPG plans to sell its first units to towns and industrial operations not connected to the grid. The company estimates lifetime costs for its battery will be a fraction of the price to build and run a natural gas plant with the same capacity. Backed by venture capital from Altira, HPG could have its batteries ready in six years. (Via Transterrestrial Musings.)Labels: Environmentalism, Technology
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments
BloggerThis
|
| Thursday, January 10, 2008 |
|
Cold Weather? I Blame Global Warming
By Paul Hsieh @ 7:10 AM
There's been a fair amount of extreme cold weather recently around the world. Of course, many environmentalists are attributing this to global warming. Geophysicist David Deming notes:Extreme cold weather is occurring worldwide. On Dec. 4, in Seoul, Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius. Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the minimum temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than the previous record low set in 1952. The Canadian government warns that this winter is likely to be the coldest in 15 years.
Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are just emerging from a destructive ice storm that left at least 36 people dead and a million without electric power. People worldwide are being reminded of what used to be common sense: Cold temperatures are inimical to human welfare and warm weather is beneficial. Left in the dark and cold, Oklahomans rushed out to buy electric generators powered by gasoline, not solar cells. No one seemed particularly concerned about the welfare of polar bears, penguins or walruses. Fossil fuels don't seem so awful when you're in the cold and dark.
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.
Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. Labels: Environmentalism, Science
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments
BloggerThis
|
| Tuesday, January 08, 2008 |
|
Eco-Insanity
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:50 AM
(Note: I meant to post this entry a few weeks ago, but it got lost in the queue. It's still relevant, however.)
Well, it's hardly a loss to the world that some eco-freaks refuse to reproduce:
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years [Toni] was sterilised to "protect the planet". Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal. "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future.
...
Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly. "We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. "In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.
"That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth. "Sarah and I don't need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet." I doubt that organic-buying soccer moms will be rushing to sterilize themselves anytime soon. That's one reason why I don't regard the ecological movement as a long-term threat anywhere in par with religion, as dangerous as it might be in the short-term.
In its most consistent form, the ecological movement is nothing better than nihilistic destruction of human life. That's not true of its mass base, however. Most ordinary-folk "environmentalists" are moved by the worry that we're destroying the environment in ways that will be ultimately harmful to human life. They're wrong in that embrace of environmentalism, as real as environmental destruction can be, but they're not nihilists ready and eager to sterilize themselves for the sake of the planet.
To put the point in the standard terms of environmental philosophy, most ordinary folk describing themselves as "environmentalists" are fundamentally anthropocentric (i.e. human-centered) in their reasoning. They think that preserving and protecting the environment is necessary for human well-being. In contrast, the ideological leaders of the environmental movement disdain all such anthropocentric thinking. They regard nature as valuable for its own sake. It's not just living beings (including rats, slugs, and deadly bacteria) that have such intrinsic value, often rocks and rivers to too. Humans are also intrinsically valuable. So we count for something, albeit much in the same way that the individual counts for something in utilitarian calculations with a global population of billions. Actually, we're not even all that, since humans do so much damage to other species and environments without contributing anything good in return. (For a prominent example of this general view, see Paul Taylor's well-known article "Biocentric Egalitarianism.") The explicit purpose of environmental ethics is to de-humanize ethics, i.e. to remove humans from the forefront of ethical concern.
In contrast, no such disconnect between the ideology of leaders and mass base can be found in religion. The ideology is not nihilistic. Instead, religion promises all the wealth of values that the faithful might imagine in the afterlife. That can motivate mass fervor and mass sacrifice in this life. It is a possible basis for centuries of unquestioned darkness, destruction, and ignorance -- as the history of Europe shows quite clearly.
So as dangerous as environmentalism is on a policy level, I do not see it as a possible driving force for some new world order. Although it has broad support, it does not have deep support necessary to make "eco-topia" the goal of more than a few man-hating nutters.Labels: Environmentalism
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments
BloggerThis
|
| Saturday, December 22, 2007 |
|
Micro Nuclear Reactor
By Paul Hsieh @ 9:42 AM
I want one of these:Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor
Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.
The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.
Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009. Here is more information. If this NY Times article is correct, the system is safe, simple, and relatively inexpensive.
(For some reason, the people who are so concerned about global warming and energy independence never seem to mention this as an option, and would rather ban incandescent light bulbs.)Labels: Environmentalism
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments
BloggerThis
|
| Wednesday, December 19, 2007 |
|
Outlawing the Traditional Incandescent Light Bulb
By Paul Hsieh @ 8:30 PM
The new energy bill (passed by Congress and just signed into law by President Bush) will outlaw the traditional incandescent light bulb over the next several years, requiring instead more expensive "energy efficient" bulbs as part of the fight against global warming. Of course, if these new bulbs are more cost-effective in the long run, then there's no need to mandate their use. And if they aren't, then this is just another burden on consumers. Either way, it's a violation of the individual rights of producers and consumers of the incandescent bulbs.
This is on top of the recent shameful capitulation by the US on global warming policy at the recent international Bali conference, in which the US gave into the demands of the rest of the world.
Those who think that the Republicans and/or the religious conservatives will provide any kind of principled defense against the anti-reason and anti-human views of the environmentalists are in for a rude awakening.
Here are some links to recent news stories.
From USA Today, 12/16/2007:"It's lights out for traditional light bulbs"
Turn out the lights on traditional incandescent bulbs.
A little-noticed provision of the energy bill, which is expected to become law, phases out the 125-year-old bulb in the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of energy-efficient lights that will cost consumers more but return their investment in a few months.
The new devices include current products such as compact fluorescents and halogens, as well as emerging products such as light-emitting diodes and energy-saving incandescent bulbs.
...Under the measure, all light bulbs must use 25% to 30% less energy than today's products by 2012 to 2014. The phase-in will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70% more efficient. (Disclaimer: I have no idea how the still-legal "energy-saving incandescent bulbs" differ from the forbidden "traditional incandescent bulbs".)
From AP News, 12/19/2007:"Bush signs bill boosting fuel standards"
President Bush signed into law Wednesday legislation that will bring more fuel-efficient vehicles into auto showrooms and require wider use of ethanol, calling it "a major step" toward energy independence and easing global warming.
...The bill also calls for improved energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 percent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs. It also calls for energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings and construction of commercial buildings. From the Christian Science Monitor, 12/17/2007:"Bali Climate Deal Marks a Geopolitical Shift"
...South Africa said that the US position "was most unwelcome and without any basis." Then Kevin Conrad, who headed Papua-New Guinea's delegation, rose and turned Mr. Connaughton's comment on its head.
...Confronted with the prospect of overwhelming isolation, [chief US negotiator] Dobriansky relented, saying, "We will join the consensus."
...Many longtime observers say it was the most stunning reversal they had ever seen at one of these meetings. From the Christian Science Monitor, 12/20/07:"Many Religious Leaders Back Climate-Change Action"
Religious groups in the United States and around the world have steadily adopted pro-environment positions. At Christmastime this shift has been particularly evident regarding global climate change.
...More than 100 influential evangelical leaders have signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) to fight global warming, the [Christian] Post article says. They're asking governments and individuals to reduce CO2 emissions.
The ECI concludes that global warming is real. The Post article quotes from the initiative's statement:"Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures.... Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better." ...According to one recent poll mentioned in a story by The Economist, two-thirds of Evangelicals want immediate action on global warming. The story continues:
"The new mood reflects a generational change among evangelicals, says Andrew Walsh, a religion-watcher at Trinity College, Hartford [Conn.]. The younger lot wants to focus more on issues such as AIDS and the crisis in Darfur – a cluster of concerns that have more in common with climate change than with crusading against homosexuality." Although I'm sure it's unintentional, I find it ironic that the environmentalists and the evangelicals are teaming up to extinguish Thomas Edison's traditional incandescent light bulb, the long-time symbol of reason and thought.Labels: Environmentalism, Religion
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments
BloggerThis
|
| Monday, November 26, 2007 |
|
Stewardship
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:30 AM
Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is probably the most prominent political advocate of Christian environmentalism today. He'll be joined by more people in short order, however -- particularly as younger Christian fundamentalists raised on the environmentalist propaganda taught in schools rise to power and influence.
Huckabee is interviewed on environmental and energy issues in Salon: Huckabee: God wants us to fight global warming. Here's the introduction:
"The first thing I will do as president is send Congress my comprehensive plan for energy independence," [Huckabee] proclaims on his Web site. "We will achieve energy independence by the end of my second term." The goal may sound admirable, but even if it's achievable -- and many experts doubt that it is -- Huckabee's plan for getting there is light on specifics. Rather than spell out what steps he would take, he talks of creating a market environment that encourages innovation, and he praises just about every energy source you can think of -- nuclear, "clean coal," wind, solar, hydrogen, biomass, biodiesel, corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other untapped domestic areas, and, yes, conservation too.
A conservative Republican and devout Christian, Huckabee believes he has a biblical responsibility to protect God's planet from climate change, even though he's not convinced that climate change is largely human-caused. But mandatory limits on greenhouse-gas emissions make him squeamish. Here's the only philosophic exchange in the ensuing interview:
What makes you the strongest Republican candidate on the issues of energy and the environment?
For one thing, I'm one of the few people who's actually talked about the fact that as Republicans we have done a lousy job of presenting the case for conservation. We ought to be the leaders, but unfortunately we've been the last people speaking out on conservation.
Not only as a Republican, but as a Christian it's important to me to say to my fellow believers, "Look, if anybody ought to be leading on this issue, it ought to be us." We can't justify destroying a planet that doesn't belong to us, and if we believe that God did create this world for our pleasure and wants us to enjoy it, then all the more reason that we should take care of it. Christian "stewardship" environmentalism seems particularly dangerous to me. The reason isn't just that Republicans are adopting bad Democratic policies. They've done that so often, including on environmentalism, that another instance hardly newsworthy.
My major concern lies in the philosophic differences between Christian environmentalism and leftist environmentalism. Leftist environmentalism is nihilistic in its essence: it's hatred and destruction of humanity for its own sake. While its intellectual leaders are often genuine nihilists, its mass appeal largely depends on the wish of preserving nature for ultimately human ends. That's misguided in various ways, but it's not wholly philosophically corrupt.
In contrast, Christan environmentalism is not based on nihilistic hatred of humanity. Instead, it envisions humans as the exalted steward of God's creation. That difference could give it tremendous staying power and mass appeal, even in its most pure form. That's because it appeals to positive values, however mangled by supernaturalism. In the classification scheme of Leonard Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis, Christian environmentalism seems to be a form of "Misintegration" rather than "Disintegration." That's a significant shift.
Of course, that difference won't make this new form environmentalism kindler or gentler in practice. Whether of a supernatural or nihilistic variety, environmentalism will require the sacrifice of actual human values and human lives.
That doesn't bode well for those of us who value human life.Labels: Environmentalism, Religion
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink
Comments
BloggerThis
|
|
| | |
NoodleFoodlers
Diana Hsieh
Paul Hsieh
Greg Perkins
Guest NoodleFoodlers
Paula Hall
Blog Stuff
Recent Comments
RSS Feed by E-Mail
Ask a Question
Blogger Trackbacks
Technorati Trackbacks
Blogger Trackbacks
NoodleFood RSS Feed
NetFlix Friends
Reader Map
Objectivist Mailing Lists
OActivists
OBloggers
OAcademics
Objectivism Resources
Ayn Rand Lexicon
False Objectivism Collection
Front Range Objectivism
Ayn Rand Institute
DC Objectivist Salon
Ayn Rand Society
Activism
The Objective Standard
The Undercurrent
FIRM (Freedom and
Individual Rights in Medicine)
Ayn Rand Institute
Family
Paul Hsieh's GeekPress
Meredith Brickell Ceramics
Blogroll
Archives
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
|
