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

Wednesday, May 07, 2008 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. One article can be found here at the Newsweek site: "The Rise of the Rest". The second article from Foreign Affairs is mirrored here: "The Future of American Power". The New York Times has just reviewed the book here: "A Challenge for the U.S.: Sun Rising on the East". 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. Labels: History, Politics E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, May 05, 2008 Raising an Objectivist Puppy By Paula @ 12:27 AM 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. Labels: Personal, Politics E-mail Paula    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, April 28, 2008 Self-Defense on Campus By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM On April 15th, the Colorado Springs Gazette published my letter to the editor in response to its excellent editorial advocating concealed carry at CU in Colorado Springs. Here's my letter: 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. Diana Hsieh, Sedalia On April 22nd, I participated in the "Empty Holster Protest" at CU Boulder. It was sponsored by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. As for the importance of concealed carry on campus, John Lott recently published an op-ed on the dangers posed by gun-free zones like college campuses. Many Objectivists are lukewarm on gun rights, particularly on concealed carry. If you're one of them, you might wish to read these essays: Jeff Snyder: A Nation of Cowards Eric Raymond: Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life Heartland Institute: Taking Aim at Gun Control 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. Labels: Guns, Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, April 27, 2008 Update on North Korea By Diana Hsieh @ 12:12 AM StrategyPage has a very interesting update on the ever-declining state of affairs in North Korea. It's definitely worth reading, if you're interested in that horrid corner of the globe. Labels: Communism, Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, April 23, 2008 Too Big to Bail By Diana Hsieh @ 7:19 AM I really enjoyed Alex Epstein's "video op-ed" explaining "how the government's 'too big to bail' policy encouraged financial institutions to make billions of dollars in bad subprime investments." The text version of the op-ed is available on the Ayn Rand Institute web site, but it's just soooo much better to hear Mr. Epstein speak that fabulous line about "government bailout crack"! Labels: Business, Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, April 16, 2008 Business Regulation, Consumer Protection? By Diana Hsieh @ 11:17 PM In my recent letter to various public officials opposing proposed legislation on mandatory insurance, I wrote: If your goal is to fix the genuine problems in our health care system, then you MUST advocate FREE MARKET reforms. Eliminate the tax incentive for employer-provided health care. Eliminate all mandates and other regulations on health insurance. Eliminate regulations on medical providers. Gradually eliminate welfare programs. A few days ago, I received the following e-mail inquiry about the implications of that paragraph in particular. It said: Do you advocate eliminating most or all business and financial regulations in addition to the medical regulations mentioned above? If objectivism and the business/economic beliefs of Ayn Rand were to be law of the land, for lack of a better phrase, how would such a government prevent abuses by businesses and protect the consumer's rights from being trampled on? Those are excellent questions. I'll answer them briefly here, and I hope that others will chime in with more in-depth analysis in the comments. Yes, I do advocate the repeal of all business and financial regulations. However, that does not imply that the law has no proper function to serve in markets. In the purely capitalist economy that I advocate, the legal system serves an indispensable role: it protects the rights of all people, particularly the rights of property and contract. If a business engages in false advertising, fails to deliver the contracted-for goods, or knowingly sells dangerously defective products, then individuals should be able to resort to the courts to remedy the violation of their rights. In contrast, when the government establishes regulations "prevent abuses by business" and "protect consumer's rights," then it is actually violating the rights of both producers and consumers, not protecting them. Regulations violate everyone's rights to acquire, use, and dispose of their property as they see fit. Regulations violate everyone's rights to contract for mutually agreeable terms. In essence, regulations use government force to prevent people from acting according to their own best judgment. That's morally wrong and practically disastrous. If I'm dying of cancer with three months to live, the FDA forbids me from taking a promising experimental drug because it's not yet been proven "safe" and "effective." As if that matters: I'm dying! Supposedly, FDA regulations exist to protect me, the consumer. If I lack work experience, minimum wage laws forbid a business from hiring me except for more than I'm actually worth. So I'm forced into unemployment, even though I'd be happy to gain experience and reputation as a good worker by working for less than minimum wage for a time. Supposedly, minimum wage laws exist to protect me, the worker. If I'm a good cook looking to start a small catering business, I would be stopped dead in my tracks by the myriad regulations required to serve food and liquor. So my potential consumers have to pay more for their catering because the cost of entering the market is so high, even if they'd rather hire me. Supposedly, those health regulations exist to protect my consumers. Government regulations of business preemptively punish all producers as would-be criminals. They treat all consumers as helpless dolts unable to choose wisely. They grant government bureaucrats unlimited power over our lives. That's not good, to say the least. The proper approach is to (1) punish only actual instances of force and fraud in the market, (2) treat adults like the rational creatures they are, (3) limit government power to only protecting individual rights. To do that would require eliminating all government regulation of business -- and that's why I advocate doing so. Labels: Business, Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, April 12, 2008 Chinese Spy Awakes By Diana Hsieh @ 9:00 AM Wow: Chinese Spy 'Slept' In U.S. for 2 Decades: Prosecutors called Chi Mak the "perfect sleeper agent," though he hardly looked the part. For two decades, the bespectacled Chinese-born engineer lived quietly with his wife in a Los Angeles suburb, buying a house and holding a steady job with a U.S. defense contractor, which rewarded him with promotions and a security clearance. Colleagues remembered him as a hard worker who often took paperwork home at night. Eventually, Mak's job gave him access to sensitive plans for Navy ships, submarines and weapons. These he secretly copied and sent via courier to China -- fulfilling a mission that U.S. officials say he had been planning since the 1970s. Mak was sentenced last week to 24 1/2 years in prison by a federal judge who described the lengthy term as a warning to China not to "send agents here to steal America's military secrets." But it may already be too late: According to U.S. intelligence and Justice Department officials, the Mak case represents only a small facet of an intelligence-gathering operation that has long been in place and is growing in size and sophistication... Having read many of Viktor Suvorov's fascinating books on Soviet spying on the US during the Cold War, I find the prospect of Chinese spying quite worrisome. Labels: Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, April 10, 2008 Against Mandatory Insurance By Diana Hsieh @ 3:52 PM This morning, Ari Armstrong and other FIRM Activists strongly encouraged writing in opposition to Massachusetts-type legislation requiring all Colorado residents to purchase individual insurance. For the reasons that Paul recently detailed in this Denver Post op-ed and on the FIRM blog, such legislation would be a disaster for Colorado health care. So, I just wrote and sent the following letter (or a slight variant thereof, depending on the recipient) to the sponsors of the bill, the members of the Colorado Senate's Health and Human Services Committee, my Colorado representative and senator, and to the Colorado governor. It's particularly important to vocally oppose mandatory insurance, as it's widely supported by Republicans and Democrats. To the Democrats, it's just a more trendy form of universal health care than "single payer" plans. To the Republicans, it's a way to force people to "be responsible." Happily, FIRM has changed the minds of some Republicans in Colorado -- but given that three of the five sponsors of this bill are Republicans, obviously we have more work to do! Dear So-and-So, I am writing to ask you to oppose Senate Bill 217, which would impose mandatory health insurance in Colorado. The government of Colorado ought to respect and uphold our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That requires allowing people to make their own decisions in life -- whether right or wrong. Mandatory health insurance would violate those basic American rights. It would force people to spend THEIR money as THE GOVERNMENT sees fit, regardless of the circumstances of their lives. This legislation would force people to spend money on health insurance -- at prices inflated by other mandates requiring coverage for services they don't want and won't use and by massive government welfare programs and regulations. As a result, many people will not be able to afford goods of greater value to them -- like an apartment in a better neighborhood or tutoring for their child. No one should have to sacrifice even a trivial pleasure like a night at the movies because the government forces them to spend their money to pay for services they won't ever need -- like alcohol rehab, the HPV vaccine, autism treatment, prostate cancer screening -- as this legislation would do. (Those are already-existing Colorado mandates. This legislation would encourage even more, as special interest groups lobbied for their "indispensable" service to be covered.) That's not the end of the wrongs of mandatory insurance -- by any stretch of the imagination. As shown by the less-than-shining example of Massachusetts, this law would drive health care costs upward, encourage doctors to retire or move to another state, decrease access to quality care, create a massive new bureaucracy, and imperil the state's finances. This legislation is MORALLY WRONG. Please DO NOT support it. If your goal is to fix the genuine problems in our health care system, then you MUST advocate FREE MARKET reforms. Eliminate the tax incentive for employer-provided health care. Eliminate all mandates and other regulations on health insurance. Eliminate regulations on medical providers. Gradually eliminate welfare programs. Then, health insurance might become what it should have been all along: a person's own safety net for major injury or illness, with all ordinary medical expenses paid for out-of-pocket. That's how other forms of insurance work -- and they work well as a result. I support Freedom and Individual Rights in Health Care -- see http://www.westandfirm.org -- and I hope that you'll do the same. -- DMH Diana Hsieh Sedalia, Colorado Ph.D Candidate, Philosophy University of Colorado, Boulder I'm sure my letter could have been more eloquent and polished, but sometimes activism is just about what's possible in the time that you have available. Labels: Health Care, Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, April 09, 2008 Early Retirement Is Selfish and Unpatriotic By Paul @ 7:27 AM The March 26, 2008 Baltimore Sun has printed a disturbing OpEd by Andrew Yarrow, in which he makes the claim that Americans who retire early are "selfish and unpatriotic". Here are a few excerpts: Early retirement selfish, unpatriotic ...But there's just something - make that lots of things - wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic. Dropping out of the work force while still in one's prime means ending one's contributions to America's strength, mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future and leeching trillions of taxpayer dollars from the economy. ...Thus, working longer would increase national output and personal wealth. And given our nation's crying need for teachers, social service workers and public servants, millions of "seasoned citizens" could serve our communities while giving meaning and money to people with decades of life and activity left in them. ...For everyone's good, Americans should at least be able to work as long as their shorter-lived, poorer grandparents did. By doing so, they would be unselfishly helping preserve and strengthen our nation's future by alleviating - rather than worsening - our national debt and making hands-on contributions to our children and communities. There are a few noteworthy unstated premises in his argument. (1) Your life is not your own; instead service to others is the highest good. (2) Selfishness is opposed to patriotism; in other words looking out for your own interests is harmful to the USA. (3) When you stop working, you are "leeching" off of others. Of course, the current system of Social Security taxes are just a giant Ponzi scheme. The government attempts to promote the fiction that you are paying your own money into the system when you work and you are "getting it back" when you retire. At least Yarrow is correct in stating that retirees are collecting other people's money. As the Social Security crisis deepens over the next decade or so, I expect we'll here more such collectivist arguments, in an attempt to forestall intergenerational resentment amongst American. But the solution is not to force people to work longer for a mythical "common good". Instead, it is to phase out and eventually eliminate the collectivist system of Social Security altogether and let people truly fund their own retirement with their own money. Yes, there will be some painful transition costs. But if we do nothing, we'll pay in the form of vastly more economic pain in 15-20 years, with interest. Labels: Economics, Politics E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, April 02, 2008 Ten Commandments Weekend By Diana Hsieh @ 7:56 AM In the comments, Mel McGuire recently posted a link to Senate Resolution 483 for a "Ten Commandments Weekend" in the first weekend of May 2008. Here's the relevant bits of text: Recognizing the first weekend of May 2008 as 'Ten Commandments Weekend'. March 13, 2008 Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary RESOLUTION Recognizing the first weekend of May 2008 as 'Ten Commandments Weekend'. Whereas the Ten Commandments are precepts foundational to the faith of millions of Americans; Whereas the Ten Commandments are a declaration of fundamental principles for a fair and just society; Whereas, from the founding of the United States, the Ten Commandments have been part of America's basic cultural fabric; [Quotes from past presents omitted] Whereas, in addition to being understood as an elemental source for American law, the Ten Commandments have become a recognized symbol of law in our Nation's culture; Whereas a marble relief portrait of Moses, the Hebrew prophet and bearer of the Ten Commandments, is located prominently in the United States Capitol over the gallery doors of the chamber of the House of Representatives in honor of his work in establishing the principles that underlie American law; Whereas images of the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed in many Federal buildings, including the United States Supreme Court, the National Archives, and the Library of Congress; and Whereas the first weekends of May in 2006 and 2007 were celebrated by many Americans as 'Ten Commandments Weekend' in recognition of the importance of the Ten Commandments in their faith and the history and culture of the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) recognizes the first weekend of May 2008 as 'Ten Commandments Weekend'; (2) celebrates the Ten Commandments as a significant aspect of the national life of the United States; and (3) encourages citizens of the United States to reflect on the integral role that the Ten Commandments have played in the life of the Nation. UGH. If you want to know why the basic moral view endorsed in this resolution -- Divine Command Theory -- is so totally, awfully, and completely wrong, regardless of the contents of the actual commands, I'd recommend Onkar Ghate's lecture: Religion and Morality. It's available for free to registered users of the Ayn Rand Institute web site. Labels: Politics, Religion E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, March 31, 2008 Fundamentalism in the Military By Diana Hsieh @ 7:14 AM US military accused of harboring fundamentalism: Feb 13, 2008: Since his last combat deployment in Iraq, Jeremy Hall has had a rough time, getting shoved and threatened by his fellow soldiers. The trouble started there when he would not pray in the mess hall. "A senior ranking staff sergeant told me to leave and sit somewhere else because I refused to pray," Hall, a 23-year-old US army specialist, told AFP. Later, Hall was confronted by a major for holding an authorized meeting of "atheists and freethinkers" on his base. The officer threatened to discipline him and block his re-enlistment. "He said: 'You guys are being a problem and problems can be removed,'" Hall said. "He was yelling at us and stuff and at the very end he says, 'I really love you guys, I want you to see the light.'" Now Hall is suing the major and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, accusing them of breaching his constitutional rights. A campaign group, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, is waiting for the Pentagon to respond to a lawsuit filed in a Kansas federal court on Hall's behalf. It alleges a "pernicious pattern and practice" of infringement of religious liberties in the military. The group's founder, former Air Force lawyer Mikey Weinstein, said he has documented 6,800 testimonies by military personnel -- nearly all of them Christians -- of sometimes punitive or humiliating attempts to make them accept a fundamentalist evangelical interpretation of Christianity. "I am at war with those people who would create a fundamentalist Christian theocracy in the technologically most lethal organization ever created by our species, which is the United States armed forces," he said. He plans to add extra charges and possibly other lawsuits this month. "It violates title seven of the US code for an employer to push their Biblical world view on an employee," he said. "But it's a trillion times worse when that is not just your shift manager at Starbucks but that is your military superior." He singles out one of the major Christian groups in the military, the Officers Christian Fellowship (OCF). The group represents 15,000 US military personnel around the world, according to its director, retired Air Force general Bruce Fister. "It is not the position of OCF to try and coerce people to believe what we believe," Fister told AFP. OCF's aim, as stated on its website, is to achieve "a spiritually transformed military, with ambassadors for Christ in uniform, empowered by the Holy Spirit." It professes belief in "the eternal blessedness of the saved; and the everlasting, conscious punishment of the lost." ... Un-freaking-believable. Update: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation can be found on the web at militaryreligiousfreedom.org. Labels: Politics, Religion E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, March 28, 2008 Bin Laden Wants My Blood By Diana Hsieh @ 2:43 PM Paul recently sent the following to the OActivsts list, and I thought it worth reposting here: Flemming Rose, the courageous newspaper editor made world-famous for publishing the "Danish Cartoons" depicting Mohammed, has just written another good column on free speech: "Bin Laden Wants My Blood" (Those of you who attended the special ARI conference on the "Jihad Against the West" may recall his fantastic talk entitled, "Islam and Europe after the Cartoon-Crisis.") As Rose asks, "What kind of civilization are we, after all, if we refrain from mocking and ridiculing bin Laden and his followers?" If only we had more news editors like him in the United States... Indeed! Labels: Politics, Religion E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, March 24, 2008 The Psychological Effects of Prostitution By Diana Hsieh @ 7:53 AM Ari Armstrong recently published a defense of legal (but not moral) prostitution in the Rocky Mountain News: Should prostitution be legal?. It's a good analysis: I recommend reading it. As a followup on the OBloggers mailing list, Paul posted the following commentary on prostitution from a former booking agent for a high-end escort service describing the destructive effects of prostitution on the women and the clients. It's fascinating, so I thought I'd repost it here: "I've Seen My Share of Spitzers: The View From an Escort Service" [About the men:] .....But why would a rich, powerful and handsome man pay for extra-marital sex? Aren't there tons of women waiting to throw themselves at him for free? Yes, there are. But those women always want something: they want attention, intimacy and romance. They want to enjoy the high of sleeping with a powerful man. Escorts don't want or care about any of those things. At least one of the articles about the 22 year-old escort who slept with Spitzer implied that she didn't even know who he was. Based on my experience, I think it's highly unlikely that she knew or cared. She was in it for the money, and she had as much to hide as he did. One high-powered New York attorney explained it to me like this: "Of course I love my wife. Escorts have nothing to do with that. She comes to my hotel room and I don't have to know her name, because they all use fake names like Amber and Kimberly. I don't have to worry about how she feels or what she wants. It's a simple exchange: I give her a thousand bucks, we have a good time for a couple of hours, she goes away and we never have to see each other again." A thousand dollars is nothing for these men. Money has little value; because no matter how hard they try they will never be able to spend their hundreds of millions. And if you are about to say that for a thousand bucks those girls must supply the best sex in history, then you really do not understand this world. Because it is not about sex; it is about power. And the simple act of ordering up an anonymously pretty 22 year-old girl to do your bidding in the salubrious confines of a luxury hotel suite is an act of power. [About the women:] .....None of these girls was coerced into selling her body for money. Most of them came from middle-class backgrounds, and many had been accepted to universities. But they dropped out as soon as they discovered that they could make $20-30,000 a month as an escort. Then they got addicted to the money and the lifestyle. And then one day, usually between the ages of 25 and 28, once they'd developed that knowing, experienced look that clients instinctively disliked, they found that themselves in a classic bind: they were addicted to high living but could no longer pay for it; they had no marketable skills; and years of late nights and lazy days had left them with no self-discipline. What to do? The really smart ones pulled themselves together and, with the help of a sympathetic client, started some kind of a business. Others married rich, cynical, older men in a sort of paid-wife arrangement. Those were the most common stories. I did not inquire into the fate of the girls who sort of faded away. I did not want to hear about their loneliness and poverty. You can read the full essay here. Labels: Ethics, Love/Sex, Politics, Psychology E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    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: Philosopher Noumenal Self's essay on environmental problems and solutions: In which I reveal my seedy green underbelly? Two essays on conservation from biologist Monica: Property Rights are Good, Not Bad, for Environmental Conservation and Why Environmental Conservation? 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 (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, March 12, 2008 Washington Times Letter By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM Hooray! My letter to the editor in praise of Dick Armey's moral defense of intellectual property was published in The Washington Times today: Sing a song Thanks to Dick Armey ("Airing on free use," Commentary, Friday) for defending intellectual property in broadcast radio as a matter of justice to the creators. Today's producers of music--artists, management and record companies--offer consumers around the world a vast array of music for all tastes. Those producers deserve to be rewarded handsomely for their efforts, not cheated of royalties by legal loopholes for broadcast radio or online file sharing. Without the producers of music, we'd be stuck listening to our own off-key shower singing. DIANA HSIEH Sedalia, Colo. Normally, I prefer to focus my activism efforts on local papers, but that was too good an opportunity to pass by. Paul also published a letter to the editor on health care in The Christian Science Monitor last Friday. Hooray FIRM! Labels: Activism, Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Tuesday, March 11, 2008 Alex Epstein on Market Neutral By Diana Hsieh @ 10:00 AM In this 35 minute "Market Neutral" podcast, Chip Hanlon interviews ARI's Alex Epstein. The description reads: "Ayn Rand Institute analyst, Alex Epstein, discusses government's proper role in 'fixing' the subprime mess. He also weighs in on Libertarians, with remarks that may surprise given the recent euphoria surrounding long-shot presidential candidate, Ron Paul." (Via Mike) I was able to listen to this podcast in early January. It was definitely interesting, particularly the comments on Ron Paul and libertarianism. I'm not sure that I agree with Alex's analysis of libertarianism, but it was good food for thought. Update: I recalled what in particular I disagreed with in Alex's analysis of libertarianism. It's posted in the comments. Labels: Libertarianism, Objectivism, Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Saturday, March 01, 2008 The Morality of Capitalism By Diana Hsieh @ 5:18 PM WSJ's blog "Deal Journal" posted the following inquiry under the title "Is Capitalism Immoral?" yesterday: Here's a question to think about over the weekend: Is capitalism immoral? Stefan Theil seems to think that is what is being taught to European school kids. In an article in the January/February edition of Foreign Policy magazine, Stefan Theil concluded that Europe, particularly France and Germany, are teaching their children a "philosophy of failure," based on the idea that capitalism is immoral, savage and unhealthy. Theil - whose day job is European economics editor for Newsweek - cites a 2005 poll in which only 36% of French citizens said they support the free enterprise system; 47% of Germans said in 2007 that they support socialist ideals. Theil mentions that anti-American attitudes may be, in part, anti-capitalist. Theil, who studied French and German financial textbooks as a fellow for the German Marshall Fund, compiles a couple of quotes from the books that guide Europe's impressionable young into what he calls a "deep anti-market bias." One German textbook intones, "The worldwide call for...more deregulation in reality means a grab for the material lifeblood of the modern nation-state," and a French one teaches, "Globalization implies 'subjugation of the world to the market,' which constitutes a true cultural danger." Well, now you know why foreign companies have such a hard time buying anything in Germany or France. (And why France's Suez and Gaz de France were forced to merge with each other rather than accept foreign buyers, and why NYSE-Euronext has a big Paris base, as does Alcatel-Lucent.) But you knew that already. In contrast, it would seem easy to conclude that "Western-style capitalism" is actually only practiced by the U.S. and Britain. Those two countries are the biggest sellers of their own homegrown assets, according to a report this week from Canada's Secor Conseil. But the U.S. is hardly immune to protecting its national borders, particularly when it comes to China, as CNOOC will tell you. Or how about the long to-do about China's Huawei's involvement in Bain Capital's $2.2 billion bid for 3Com. It's America that's having trouble with the bid, and America's not, as far as we can tell, anti-capitalist. (That's why Ayn Rand lived here). And some of the policies that Thiel considers anti-capitalist, like a "rich-people tax," are espoused not just by Germany's Angela Merkel; they're also supported by American Democrats, including Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. So Deal Journal Readers, what would be the ideal U.S. textbook entry addressing the morality or immorality of our globalized capitalist system? My apologies for posting the entry in its entirety, but I wanted to include the mention of Ayn Rand, since that included the false claim that the US isn't anti-capitalist. Here's what I posted in the comments: "What would be the ideal U.S. textbook entry addressing the morality or immorality of our globalized capitalist system?" I'd recommend Ayn Rand's essay "What is Capitalism?" from _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_. Rand clearly and persuasively argues that capitalism is the only moral political/economic system. Only capitalism respects the inescapable metaphysical fact that a person must reason in order to live. By recognizing individual rights, particularly by banning force and fraud, capitalism protects each person's capacity to act according to his own rational judgment in pursuit of his values. To varying degrees, every other economic system makes the pursuit of the values required for life impossible. (Today, that's most dramatically illustrated by the starvation of North Korea under communism.) However, America is not a capitalist nation: we have a mixed economy in which the government routinely violates individual rights with welfare programs, antitrust laws, environmental regulations, corporate subsidies, drug laws, and more. As much as Ayn Rand loved America, she would not defend the status quo. The comments so far are mostly horrid: either openly anti-capitalist or pragmatist. So I'd encourage people to post something arguing for the morality of capitalism. Labels: Activism, Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, February 27, 2008 A Quick Letter on Abortion By Diana Hsieh @ 8:49 AM Here's a quick letter to my state representatives that I wrote in early February on a proposed bill to restrict abortion by requiring ultrasounds: From: Diana Hsieh <Diana.Hsieh(at)Colorado.edu> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:59:56 -0700 Subject: SB 95 Dear Senators, It is my understanding that SB 95 will be heard in the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee on Monday. The bill would require "a physician to provide information regarding an ultrasound to a woman prior to the woman's decision whether to have an abortion." I urge you to oppose this bill. Colorado ought not impose any such restrictions on abortion. The purpose of the bill is not to require genuine informed consent. Every woman who chooses to have an abortion knows that she is destroying a potential (but not actual) human being -- not a shoe, plant, or a hippo. She violates no rights in doing so. She ought not be forced to look at pictures. So the sole purpose of the bill is be to make abortion more costly. It is part of an attempt by foes of abortion to regulate it out of existence, since they cannot ban it out right. All such attempts [are] morally wrong. They ought to be opposed. Diana Hsieh Ph.D Candidate, Philosophy University of Colorado, Boulder Diana.Hsieh(at)Colorado.edu Ari Armstrong has more details in this blog post. Labels: Activism, Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Wednesday, February 13, 2008 Testing the American Dream By Paul @ 11:30 AM Having been told that it was extremely difficult for poor people to advance up the economic ladder in America, college graduate Adam Shepard conducted an interesting experiment. He decided to start from the very bottom of the economic ladder, with "a gym bag, $25, and little else". He moved into a homeless shelter "on the wrong side of the tracks in Charleston, S.C." He set as his goal "to have a furnished apartment, a car, and $2,500 in savings within a year", without relying on his education or his former contacts. He worked his way out of poverty, found work as a day laborer, made new friends, and landed a steady job at a moving company. He had to quit his experiment after 10 months because of learning of an illness in his family, "[b]ut by then he had moved into an apartment, bought a pickup truck, and had saved close to $5,000." According to the article: The effort, he says, was inspired after reading "Nickel and Dimed," in which author Barbara Ehrenreich takes on a series of low-paying jobs. Unlike Ms. Ehrenreich, who chronicled the difficulty of advancing beyond the ranks of the working poor, Shepard found he was able to successfully climb out of his self-imposed poverty. Clearly, this shows the crucial role that a person's character, attitude, and work ethic play in whether he is successful or not, as opposed to the exact magnitude of material resources he starts with. The full article tells more Adam Shepard's fascinating story: "Homeless: Can You Build a Life from $25?" He has also written a book about his experience, entitled, Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream. It looks like his book has gotten consistently high reviews on Amazon. (We've ordered a copy already, but it's currently out of stock and on back order.) Labels: Economics, Politics E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Monday, February 11, 2008 Update on FIRM Activities By Paul @ 12:01 AM Lin Zinser, executive director of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine), has just posted the following summary of our first year of activities to the FIRM blog. I hope this provides a concrete example of (and inspiration for) anyone who is interested in what can and has been accomplished through philosophically principled political activity. (And thank you, Lin, for driving all around the state giving talks, appearing on radio and TV programs, attending nearly all of the mind-numbing 208 Commission meetings, and talking with our Colorado state legislators. And thanks also go to John Powers for his support of FIRM in the form of website design and sleek graphics for the brochure copies of Dr. Peikoff's essay that Lin has distributed around the state, to Jennifer Armstrong for her design of the FIRM logo and to Diana for creating the website and mailing lists and giving FIRM its online presence.) -- Paul Hsieh, MD * * * FIRM: Year End Results by Lin Zinser Today we celebrate the achievements of the FIRM coalition over the past year. FIRM was begun at the end of January 2007, and comprises a group of Colorado citizens with diverse careers, interests and ideas about what medicine and health insurance should (and could) look like in Colorado (and in America, for that matter). They come from different political parties and ideologies. What these people do agree with is that the government should stop regulating, controlling and intervening in decisions that individuals make about what medical procedures they should have, whether to buy health insurance, and if so, what type of health insurance is appropriate for them and their families, and who should be their provider of services, among the thousand other decisions that people make regarding their health every year. I am very appreciative for all of you who have supported the efforts of FIRM, and want to provide you the tangible record of your efforts. Briefly, in a summary form, they are as follows. From January 30, 2007, to January 31, 2008, FIRM coalition supporters had the following public results: Letters to the editor -- 48 (including one in "USA Today") OpEds/Columns -- 26 Citations in Media -- at least 10, perhaps more Articles/Essays -- 2 Talks/Panel Discussions -- 9 Media appearances -- 6 Formal Proposal Submissions to 208 Commission -- 1 Public statements to 208 Commission -- 17 Letters to 208 Commission during their request for public comments -- at least 5, undoubtedly more Letter to Colorado Medical Society -- 1 Public Statements to Medical Organizations -- Total 1 Public Statement to Colorado Joint Legislative Committee on Health and Human Services -- 1 Distribution of "Health Care is Not A Right", by Leonard Peikoff -- over 1,000 copies These are fabulous results. The war is not yet won, and it will be difficult. Last year, at this time, one of the popular ideas in the public was the individual mandate to purchase insurance. This year, at least, it looks like there will not be a push for the individual mandate to purchase insurance in the State of Colorado, and that is due in no small part to the efforts of FIRM supporters -- of their own, individual efforts. Individual mandates are not dead, but they are no longer thriving. This year, it appears that the effort will be to expand government health insurance to all of the uninsured children in the state, increasing the number of people on government programs that don't work, giving families the illusion of coverage, at an expensive price tag for all, including taxpayers. We expect to see additional restrictions on insurance policies, including benefit mandates and rating issues as well. So there is work yet to do. Below are the details that support the summary above. I applaud every name on the list, and I also applaud all of you who have written, sent comments and forwarded any of these efforts to friends, family, co-workers, doctors or other health-care providers. Please remember as you read the list, that not everyone on the list may absolutely be in 100% agreement with all aims of FIRM. FIRM is a coalition, and its ideas are expressed in its Statement of Principles and Goals. These individuals have expressed their adherence to some of these goals in these particular writings or public statements. A special thanks to Paul Hsieh for blogging so diligently and for co-writing with me an excellent article on the state of medicine and health insurance in America. I have used smaller type so that this blog post is not so long. Letters to the editor -- Total 48 (including one in "USA Today") Diana Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 2/5/2007, "Paul Campos: Health Care" Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 3/3/2007, "Universal Health Care" Richard Watts, Rocky Mountain News, 4/16/2007, "End government health-care meddling" Richard Watts, Craig Daily Press, 4/19/2007, "Health Care" Paul Hsieh, Denver Post, 4/24/2007, "Health Care is Not a Right" Russell Shurts, Rocky Mountain News, 4/25/2007, "Health Care in Colorado" Richard Watts, Rio Blanco Herald Times, 4/26/2007, "Health Care" Paul Hsieh, Denver Post, 4/30/2007, "Two Arguments Why Health Care is Not a Right" Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 4/30/2007, "Fair Health Care" Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 5/3/2007, "Medical insurance restrictions are costly" Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 5/3/2007, "Health Care: The government would worsen it" Ralph Shnelvar, Denver Post, 5/6/2007, "Debating health care systems in U.S., Canada" Hanah Krening, Denver Post, 5/23/2007, "Proposals to reform health care in Colorado" Paul Hsieh, Pueblo Chieftain, 5/27/2007, "Socialized Medicine" Richard Watts, Steamboat Pilot, 5/30/2007, "Too Much Control" Richard Watts, Rocky Mountain News, 5/31/2007, "Health Care" Richard Watts, Glenwood Springs Post-Independent, 5/31/2007, "Don't Allow the Government to Dictate Your Health Care" Gina Liggett, Denver Post, 6/6/2007, "Free Market Health Care Reform" Gina Liggett, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/9/2007, "There is No 'Right' to Any Health Care" Gina Liggett, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 6/13/2007, "Need vs. Right" Gina Liggett, Carbondale Valley Sentinel, 6/14/2007, "Need vs. Right" Gina Liggett, Pueblo Chieftain, 6/17/2007, "Health Panel Stacked Deck" Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 6/19/2007, "'Universal' Health Care" Richard Watts, Grand Junction Free Press, 6/21/2007, "Health Care is Not a Right" Richard Watts, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/22/2007, "Health Care is Not a Right" Martin Buchanan, Denver Post, 6/27/2007, "Health Care For All: Whose Responsibility Is It?" Gina Liggett, Rocky Mountain News, 6/28/2007, "Health Care is Not a 'Right', It's a Need" Russell Shurts, Rocky Mountain News, 6/29/2007, "Social Responsibility" Gina Liggett, USA Today, 6/29/2007, "Moore In Denial" Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 7/2/2007, "Health Insurance" Diana Hsieh, Colorado Springs Gazette, 7/3/2007, "People, not government, responsible for health" Gina Liggett, Denver Post, 7/6/2007, "Health Care in the US" Gina Liggett, Northern Colorado Business Report, 7/6/2007, "Free Health Care?!" Richard Watts, Rocky Mountain News, 7/7/2007, Health Care" Paul Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 7/12/2007, "In-Store Health Clinics" Diana Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 7/17/2007, "Free Market Medicine is the Answer" Gina Liggett, Colorado Confidential, 7/21/2007, "Health Care" Paul Hsieh, Denver Post, 7/31/2007, "Rising Health Care Costs" Richard Watts, Denver Post, 7/31/2007, "SCHIP Program" Lin Zinser, Rocky Mountain News, 8/7/2007, "Health Care in Colorado" Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 8/13/2007, "Free Markets Key to Affordable Health Care" James Schroeder, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 8/28/2007, "Single Payer Health Plan Would Be Costly and Unfair" Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 8/31/2007, "Health Savings Accounts" Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 9/7/2007, "Funding Health Care" Russell Shurts, Grand Junction Free Press, 9/13/2007, "We Shouldn't Be Forced" Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 9/24/2007, "We Do Not Have Free Market Care" Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 1/4/2008, "Free Market Health Insurance Needed" Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 1/17/2008, "Politically Controlled Insurance Is a Disease" OpEds/Columns -- Total 26 Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 2/11/2007, "Government-run auto repair? Yes!" Ari Armstrong, Boulder Weekly, 2/15/2007, "Colorado Medical Socialism" Ari Armstrong, "What's Right With Colorado Health Care", 4/8/2007, Independence Institute Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 4/28/2007, "Government controls violate rights, raise costs, cut access" Paul Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 6/2/2007, "Free market holds key to ensuring quality for Coloradans" Paul Hsieh, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/10/2007, "Socialized Medicine is Wrong for State" Paul Hsieh, Pueblo Chieftain, 6/10/2007, ""Blue ribbon panel prescribes wrong approach on health care" Linn and Ari Armstrong, Grand Junction Free Press, 6/11/2007, "Health socializers ignore benefits of liberty, harms of controls" Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 8/5/2007, "Don't Model State Reforms on Medicaid: How Should Colorado Lawmakers Fix A Broken System" Russell Shurts, Rocky Mountain News, 8/7/2007, "Socialized Medicine Just Another Gang Operation" Ralph Shnelvar, Boulder Daily Camera, 8/14/2007, "Your Government Doesn't Care" Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 8/26/2007, "Warning: Medicaid is Hazardous to Your Health" James Schroeder, Grand Junction Free Press, 8/23/2007, "Beware of unintended consequences of health care proposals" Linn and Ari Armstrong, Grand Junction Free Press, 9/3/2007, "Reformers demand more labor for politically-run medicine" Paul Hsieh, Ayn Rand Institute, 9/18/2007, "'Single-Payer' Health Care Is Anything but Free" Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 9/26/2007, "Government Control Is Bad For Your Health" Linn and Ari Armstrong, Grand Junction Free Press, 10/15/2007, "Insurance Mandates Threaten Your Health" Linda Gorman, Independence Institute, 10/24/2007, "It's Official: Medicaid Managed Care Does Not Save Money" James Schroeder, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 11/18/2007, "Expanding Medicaid Eligibility Will Mean Fewer Doctors Accept It" Brian Schwartz, 11/21/2007, Independence Institute, "Ritter's health care cure would prove more crippling to Coloradans" Linda Gorman, Independence Institute, 12/3/2007, "Health care "reform" in Colorado: Go home and die; it's cheaper" James Schroeder, Grand Junction Free Press, 12/26/2007, "Here's Your Prescription" Brian Schwartz, TCS Daily, 1/14/2008, "Compulsory Medical Insurance as Collective Punishment" Linn and Ari Armstrong, Grand Junction Free Press, 1/21/2008, "More Political Control of Medicine Comes With Higher Costs" Linda Gorman and Ari Armstrong, Rocky Mountain News, 1/30/2008, "A Very Costly Health Care Solution" Brian Schwartz, Colorado Springs Gazette, 1/31/2008, "Compulsory Insurance as Collective Punishment" Citations in Media -- At least 10, perhaps more Lin Zinser quoted in Colorado Springs Gazette, 5/22/2007, "State health care commission narrows focus" Paul Hsieh quoted on Mike Rosen Radio show, 6/7/2007 Brian Schwartz cited in Face the State, 8/27/2007, "Does the Effort to Provide Government Health Care For All Kids Leave Too Many Behind?" Brian Schwartz quoted in Denver Post, 8/31/2007, "Experts pan health savings accounts" James Schroeder quoted in Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 10/12/2007, "Community Discusses Health Care Reform" Brian Schwartz quoted in Rocky Mountain News, 10/5/2007, "Audience at health care forum backs single-payer proposal" Ari Armstrong and Brian Schwartz cited in Rocky Mountain News, 10/13/2007, Jason Salzman Column Brian Schwartz and Paul Hsieh quoted in Colorado Springs Gazette editorial, 1/3/2008, "Health Care, Ho! State Should Avoid Repeat of Massachusetts" Linda Gorman cited in Rocky Mountain News, 1/10/2008, "Mandatory Health Plan Participation Opposed" Linda Gorman and Brian Schwartz cited in Face the State, 1/31/2008, "Minority Report Critical of Health Commission Findings" Articles/Essays -- Total 2 Paul Hsieh, Colorado Medicine (March-April 2007 issue), "An Open Letter to Colorado Physicians" Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, The Objective Standard (Winter 2007-2008 issue), "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'" Guest Speaker/Panel Discussions -- Total - 9 Lin Zinser, "The Crisis in Colorado Health Care", 4/17/2007, Colorado Springs Republican Women Lin Zinser, Aurora Rotary Club, 6/11/2007 Lin Zinser, Grand Junction, 7/19/2007 Lin Zinser, Castle Rock Republicans, 7/20/2007 Lin Zinser, Jefferson County Town Hall Meeting, 8/18/2007 Lin Zinser, Greeley Centennial Rotary Club, 9/6/2007 Lin Zinser, El Paso County Republican Women, 9/17/2007 Lin Zinser, Mesa County Republicans, 9/21/2007 Lin Zinser, Gateway Rotary Club, 9/26/2007 Media appearances -- Total 6 Lin Zinser, 5/10/2007, Amy Oliver Radio Show Lin Zinser, 5/18/2007, John Caldera TV Show "Independent Thinking" Brian Schwartz, 6/17/2007, John Andrews Radio Show Lin Zinser, 7/26/2007, KNZZ Report Radio Show Lin Zinser, 7/26/2007, Grand Junction TV 5:00 news Lin Zinser, 9/6/2007, Amy Oliver Radio Show Formal Proposal Submissions to 208 Commission -- Total 1 Brian Schwartz, "Free Markets, Affordability & Individual Rights" Public statements to 208 Commission Meetings -- Total 17 Paul Hsieh (read by Lin Zinser), 1/30/2007 Brian Schwartz, 10/4/2007 James Schroeder, 10/11/2007 Lin Zinser, 1/30/2007, 1/31/2007, 2/21/2007, 3/28/2007, 4/27/2007, 5/17/2007, 5/18/2007, 6/19/2007, 7/18/2007, 8/23/07, 9/24/2007, 11/02/2007, 12/13/2007, 1/10/2008 Letters to 208 Commission during their request for public comments -- Total at least 5, undoubtedly more Lin Zinser, Diana Hsieh, Paul Hsieh, Betty Evans, Richard Watts, and others Letter to Colorado Medical Society - Total 1 James Schroeder, November 2007 Public Statements to Medical Organizations - Total 1 Paul Hsieh, Arapahoe-Douglas-Elbert Medical Society, 6/21/2007 Public Statement to Colorado Joint Legislative Committee on Health and Human Services - Total 1 Lin Zinser, January 31, 2008 Labels: Health Care, Politics E-mail Paul    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Sunday, February 10, 2008 Police Neutrality Concretized By Diana Hsieh @ 9:17 AM When police remain neutral between criminals and law-abiding citizens, who do you think wins? If you're not just quite sure -- or if you'd just like a dramatic illustration -- watch this mind-boggling video of Berkeley protesters forcibly preventing people from peacefully conducting their business at a local Marine Corps office. Nick Provenzo has created a petition condemning "the resolutions of the City Council of Berkeley, California which declare that United States Marine Corps recruiters are 'uninvited and unwelcome intruders' within Berkeley city limits and applauds those who choose to 'impede' the Marines in their recruiting mission." I have chosen not to sign the petition, as much as I abhor the City Council's actions. I cannot reasonably pledge "not to conduct any business within the Berkeley city limits or patronize any company which has its headquarters within Berkeley," as it requires. However, if you feel you can do so honestly, please do sign the petition. Last I read, it has over 4,000 signatures. More would be better. Labels: Politics E-mail Diana Hsieh    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Friday, February 08, 2008 What's Your Six-Word Motto for the USA? By Greg @ 11:41 AM The Freakonomics blog over at NYTimes has a little contest asking people to try to write a six-word motto for the US. Browsing the comments, I found an amazing variety of self-deprecating, self-hating, cynical, desperate, overly narrow, pathetic, and downright moronic entries. Oh, and there are even some clever and nice ones, too. Here's some of that variety: "The last best hope of mankind." "When in doubt, whip it out!" "We came; we saw; we ravaged." "12 Million Illegals Can't Be Wrong!" "e plures suffragium, unum claudus rectum" (Translation: out of many votes, one lame decider.) "Land of free, ex-home of braves." "Our 'poor' are richer than you." "One Nation To Rule The Mall" "All your oil are belong to us." "Always number one. We insist." "Dominated the 20th Century -- now what?" "We Saved The World from Hitler" "Why can't you be like us?" "The most gentle empire so far." "Hold my beer and watch this!" "Birthplace of the earth's true terrorists." "We make and break the rules." "Look, at least we're trying." "Where too much is never enough." "Please step away from the oil." "Our worst critics prefer to stay." Who better than a crowd like ours to name the essence of this land, its promise, its potential. What are your six words? I submitted these: "Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness." "Founded on the concept of freedom." "Best and last hope of humanity." Labels: Politics E-mail Greg    PermaLink    Comments (Popup)    BloggerThis Thursday, January 17, 2008 Huckabee the Theocrat By Diana Hsieh @ 11:09 PM In his October 2006 his statement on the election, Leonard Peikoff urged voting for Democrats rather than Republicans based on an analysis of their respective driving philosophies. He wrote, In essence, the Democrats stand for socialism, or at least some ambling steps in its direction; the Republicans stand for religion, particularly evangelical Christianity, and are taking ambitious strides to give it political power. Socialism--a fad of the last few centuries--has had its day; it has been almost universally rejected for decades. Leftists are no longer the passionate collectivists of the 30s, but usually avowed anti-ideologists, who bewail the futility of all systems. Religion, by contrast--the destroyer of man since time immemorial--is not fading; on the contrary, it is now the only philosophic movement rapidly and righteously rising to take over the government. Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because "both are bad." He concluded his statement by saying that, "If you hate the Left so much that you feel more comfortable with the Right, you are unwittingly helping to push the U.S. toward disaster, i.e., theocracy, not in 50 years, but, frighteningly, much sooner." I