Pericles(MBA)

I recently had a peek into the fresh new world of American BioScience. I took an advanced class on bioinformatics programming taught in Maryland where the biosci community has a large population. I learned that there are many more such biosci communities in New York, Chicago, Denver, Phoenix, and of course southern California. BioSci is on the verge of a boom, much like the tech boom of the 1980's-90's. The BioSci boom is poised to change medical care in ways that many people cannot conceive in terms of new treatments for disease, and new ways of thinking about healing, quality of life, and life-span. This boom is in part to a growing market for medical services by a population that wants to live longer and better. Compared to our current medical technology (almost dark ages stuff by comparison), these new advances promise things only dreamed in sci-fi fiction. Consider that many of our medical treatments have roots in 50 to 60 year-old practices, and treat symptoms more than provide cures. Imagine treatments that look at preventing diseases that would later cause cancer or heart problems, or dna level treatments that would fix problems for those who already suffer such ailments. Not possible? Consider that AmGen has already developed a drug that grows new lung tissue, new treatments for some serious heart problems promise to lengthen lifespan by double compared to just 10 years ago. Genome mapping has now been reduced in cost so that an average consumer can now afford to have their individual mapping done - which will aid in personally tailored biosci treatments. These are just some of the amazing new things being developed, and new recruits for the biosci schools are at an all time high. But the political class has plans to jump into this boom, attempt to feed off it financially, and take credit for the successes. Years ago when I was an undergrad journalism student a government academic came to speak to our college about journalism ethics and the Internet. She complained that one big regret of academics was that the government was not more involved in the tech boom, having more 'input' on home computers, internet providers, and internet content. Those of us who understand the free market know that government involvement would have prevented the tech boom, but these government academics don't know or care. This time the liberals don't want the boom to happen without their consent, and the 'healthcare reform' being debated in Congress is aimed at gaining that control. So the focus of the debate is on sharing the measly current state of medical care. Do we have enough flu clinics in poor neighborhoods? What about free drugs for the old people? Do immigrant women have the same level of care as rich suburban women? We will be reduced to spending money on the lowest level of healthcare, and markets for new biosci-based treatments will be left to falter. If national 'health reform' succeeds, then the BioSci boom will never happen. Imagine if the government academics had such control over the tech boom. We would be fighting over free public time using old mainframe computers. While we would envy the rich with their Commodore PET and Acorn computers running with DOS 1.1 and 4 meg of ram. The internet would consist of command line text on ill lit green screens that only the wealthy could access for short periods of time. John McCain would refuse to sign the new tech reform bill unless the elderly got new vacuum tubes paid for by their government mandated tech insurance. The govt academics must first convince people that the BioSci world is not real, but only the 'here and now' of technology exists. This is the dark end of their philosophy. Ivy Starnes, one of the villans of the novel Atlas Shrugged who turned a free market business into a socialist tool, spent great effort to convince people that advances in technology were not positive. She and her government ilk friends supported the propaganda machine that tried to turn the population into sheep. We see a similar type of mentality now in the popular media where stories on how failing to enact government healthcare will mean poor healthcare for many people, while government control will ensure improvements. However if we had an honest news media, we would have more stories that would share some of the new medical advances being considered - because once the public knows what is possible they can embrace it and see it through to reality. People would reject the failed redistribution model in favor of a market model that offers more. Market demand is created by public discussion, so if the only discussion is for government healthcare then that is all that we are going to get. See also- http://cardiology.jwatch.org/cgi/content/c...ion/2009/1117/3 http://www.amgen.com">http://www.amgen.com http://www.pacificbiosciences.com/video_lg...m/video_lg.html http://www.newscientist.com">http:...ewscientist.com

Will John McCain's campaign use the college student vote to jump start his campaign? His last campaign was very big on attempting to use college campuses as springboards for launching his campaign. His message of 'reform' against the old generation of corruption strikes home with the college student crowd. Many college students do not understand more knowledgeable older people enough that they can dismiss much of what they do not understand as phonyness, as seen by their strong support for John Kerry. The test is if they are cynical enough to buy into the McCain campaign fully. From talking to some very 'politically astute' college students I met thru interns at work, I noticed that they shared the characteristics of being dismissive of principles, but still confident that their assumptions are correct. Aka, the Wet Nurse mentality.

I had heard that part of the break had to do with a sort of 'primacy of economics' view on Reisman's part.

Regarding the news of Echinacea not being a valid treatment for the common cold: MSNBC: Echinacea fails to treat or prevent colds in study The most telling comment was this: “Our study ... adds to the accumulating evidence that suggests that the burden of proof should lie with those who advocate this treatment,” wrote Dr. Ronald Turner. However I believe people will continue to believe in Echinacea despite evidence, primarily because distrust of scientific evidence is becoming part of popular culture.

Many critics pointed out that there was not enough plot regarding Anakin's turn to the dark side. If they had shown more of an internal struggle and more motivations then it would have made more sense. <spoiler alert> Anakin simply choose to become this completely evil person, killing his former Jedi friends and children, based entirely on the single promise from a person he just discovered is a Sith Lord. His complete change in self-identity was too extreme to convince any psychologist or decent script writer. Why would he even believe the Sith would deliver on his promise? He went from hating the Sith to complete obedience to them based on a single promise. "Hey I just realized you are a Sith Lord, and sure I will join you and destroy much of what I once was". That is just not enough. I can think of many ways they might have developed Anakin having a more gradual acceptance of the Sith. <spoiler alert> I also thought that the movie could have dealt a bit more with the corruption within the Senate. How does a Republic suddenly become an Empire based on a the evil of a single person? It took Rome hundreds of years and many corrupt generations to destroy that Republic. Why didn't any of the Senators speak out when Palpatine announced the Empire? If they were too corrupt to speak, then what was their corruption? Political corruption presented correctly is actually a very interesting sub-plot in any movie. Take Gladiator or Braveheart, for example.

One major thing that might improve the US military is that if Congress and the President did not have to worry about socialist programs like Social Security and Medicaid, they could focus more energy and money on improvements to our military (not to mention winning wars). The fact that Bush is collapsing into socialism will do a great harm to the War on Terror.

Actually I've noticed that a lot of people that are unhappy are drawn to Objectivism because they think it will make them happy, or they hope it will help them become happier. Sometimes it does. Do you have some philosophy that will make people even happier? Then tell us about it! (It better not involve hitting yourself in the head with a big rubber ball like in 'I Heart Huckabees'). ...Ditto on the 'sex with the girlfriend' thing that MasterSwig said.

I'm wondering if this kind of person sounds familiar to anyone here: They are somewhat educated and intelligent and hold a job that requires a certain level of intelligence. They lack ambition. They spend a great deal of their time worrying about how their employer, or "transnational conglomerate corporations" are taking advantage of people. They become interested in campaigns to sue Microsoft, or efforts to pass employee costs onto corporations, in which they hope to share a small part of the booty. They are good with money, and make smart investments. They do have some values, and appreciate material goods, but often worry about "living like the Jones's" when they should focus more on their goals. They believe in progress and technology on some level, but they are often concrete bound about how such progress occurs (tend toward Marxist ideas about wealth accumulation). They are like a more innocent version of Mayor Bascom from Atlas Shrugged. The reason I ask this is that I have been coming across quite a few people like this in the past decade. People I have worked with from jobs at Motorola, Boeing, etc. They can be enjoyable to talk to, and even honest as friends on some level. Their lack of ambition is somewhat frustrating, but their ability to invest and save money is inspiring. They are often resistant toward Objectivism because they identify the philosophy as "corporate propoganda". I'm convinced I have discovered a missing link in the evolutionary chain. I have named them "Guardians of Equality"™ because of the amount of time they spend worrying about corporations taking advantage of employees.

I don't know much about the dominant philosophies, perhaps someone here can help me out with that. I know A. West posted this on Chinese ideas last fall: Analysis on China I have heard that Singapore has many competing religious and political groups, but all are held in check by a strict government that operates with a mix of Chinese and English law. I know the Chinese do not have respect for Western court traditions that protect the accused, and I am sure that is an element in Singapore. When I wrote, <i><b> the only criticism </i></b> I should have written that more clearly. I was mainly trying to come up with reasons that <b> I </i> would not choose to live there. I'm sure that the loss of Western legal traditions and corrupt officials would also be a criticism. The culture itself seems to have a mix of good qualities (admiration of productivity), and bad qualities (acceptance of authority). Radical Islam? Not at all. I just could not come up with a better way to describe the cities as others have described them to me. A former resident of Taiwan described it as "full of energy and activity that is not in US cities". By that he meant that business was the dominant activity in these cities, and that the energy around these business activities was obvious. For Asians "energy" is an important idea that they translate to mean everything from commerce and productivity, to health and physical exercise. There is a certain level of respect for productivity that is inspiring in what I am hearing. Only a little, and it depends on the city. Taiwan has little bribery, but there is some in Singapore and elsewhere. Corruption is more common than bribery, ie money being diverted for personal uses. As far as bribery in Singapore, some have commented that there are bribes that are so established that they function as business tolls or taxes, and are comparable to our taxes here. Although it would concern me to have unwritten taxes, the Expats said that when you become familiar with them they operate as part of the system.

I've been very curious lately about Americans and Britons who choose to live in Asian countries such as Singapore and Taiwan. I've met some Asians from there and also chatted occasionally online with some Expats living there now. The big selling point seems to be the relatively free markets of Taiwan and Singapore, and their British influenced culture. The downside would be that many services that we take for granted in the West are still expensive and scare there. But lack of services has not stopped American companies from continuing to relocate there. From what people from that area have told me, there is an economic boom taking place along the coastal cities in China, comparable to America in the 1800's. Often companies operate across several nations and cross-investment is big. Although there is strife between Taiwan and China, Taiwanese companies invest in mainland China, and vice versa. The freer nations in the region benefit from the Chinese growth. I wonder how far people think the growth in the region will continue, given that China is still technically Communist? Even though there is no Objectivist influence in Asia, that region is still experiencing the Western influence it inherited from Britian. Also the Kantian influence of Judeo-Christian religions is still minimal, and environmentalists have no political clout. As a result there are non-apologetic Meccas in the former colony cities. As I said before, the only criticism I might have of the area is that certain things like medical care, and higher education, are sometimes more expensive or limited, because Asians have not developed infrastructure as much as Western nations have. But I also understand that the developing cities are working quickly to catch up to us in those areas. One of my co-workers that visited Singapore said that citizens take great pride in how efficiently services operate in their city, and the citizens have the intelligence to want foreign businesses to relocate there. Asians are very good at "getting the word out" that our companies being there is a good thing for them. I think about many American cities with their crime, whiney welfare groups, and labor union workers, and I fail to see how they can compete with Asian cities in that respect.

"The Passion of the Koresh"! What a great nick! Your comments on Dune are right on. The Lynch movie made it almost impossible to have a Dune Messiah sequel that would not have been contradictory to the benevelent divinity.

My thoughts.. The movie was interesting, from a slice of life perspective, in showing how the environmentalists function and rationalize their views. (I know that was not the intention of the movie, and environmentalism is not the theme, but the ideology of the main character and his "pair" and the underlying philosophy beneath environmentalism is the same as that of the movie) “All things being connected” is the sort of anti-principle that makes environmentalists believe that people driving SUV’s can cause poverty in Africa and winter storms in the US. (They even had a character that believed this.) The characters did recognize the fact that nihilism is wrong, and had some good criticisms of the nihilist sense of life, but their alternative of semi-religious superstition did not have much to offer. BTW, when it comes to illustrating environmentalism “The Day After Tomorrow” was a really boring and stupid movie. This movie at least had an interesting plot and story, even if it was false art. Dustin Hoffman’s idiot-guru character and his “blanket” philosophy sounded like an explanation of Plato’s perfect forms. It was the perfect illustration of the fuzzy thinking of many college educated people trying to discover principles. It also illustrated how the left has just as much in the department of religious kooks as the right. Overall it was an interesting movie to illustrate the current struggle shared by many young people. However, as some people have commented here, it would have been a better movie with an Objectivist alternative philosophy.

In Arizona government involvement in housing has created an inflation in home prices and at the same time as prices climb the anti-capitalist talk increases. People who bought homes for $80K are now selling them for almost $200K. Land is at a premium with most of the undeveloped land surrounding the Phoenix area belonging to government or preserve land. Also home builders have increased costs due to requirements for public works and other fee increases. This is hidden inflation that Alan Greenspan cannot prevent by holding steady the cost of milk, eggs, and butter. People that are blaming this on greedy land developers need to catch and clue and read "Egalitarianism and Inflation". This supports what I have said earlier on this website that despite President Bush's pro-US foreign policy, he continues to allow the socialists to expand their powers internally. Now with his latest idea to increase social security taxes, he risks even more that the free market will be blamed when things go bust. All the more reason for US businesses to consider moving operations overseas. Since employers pay a good chunk of social security taxes anyway, these increases will only encourage employers to do just that. Expect expect even more voiciferous socialist propaganda in the next election. With Bush giving them the farm, the socialists in both parties will be emboldened.

Tom- Yes, I agree that on some levels there is hope that we are reaching a turning point philosophically. It is especially hopeful that the framework of the education system is changing such that people no longer trust public schools. Also people are starting to see dynamic ways of learning outside the government monopolized higher education system. We may have some hard years politically, upcoming under a McCain presidency, but eventually laissez-faire will triumph. However, I personally do not want to live under fascism. I am already frustrated by the limits placed on my life now. I feel a strong dislike of our mixed economy as someone who lives in China and yearns to live in America. I yearn to live in a non-existent free America because I more strongly than ever feel the frustration with the false limits we have in place. I may only have ten years of working time left, and I do not want to spend my most productive years under increasing servitude to the state. Betsy can look with hope to the future as she has a child, as do many Objectivists. I have no children, so other than serving as a historian of failed ideas, I have little to comfort me in trying to survive amongst irrationality. Many of my attempts over these past years to live a responsible life have been greeted with punishment by the government. For example, when I had a 401K, and then attempted to transfer it to a new employer the IRS taxed me twice and I have spent the past year with my tax attorney trying to tell the IRS this. The amount of taxes they claim I owe for the 401K, exceeds the 401K! But the IRS guys are stuck on the idea that I am trying to get away with something and won't let it go. If I could teach it might grant me something, but since that is not my degree breaking into the education field is near impossible. I guess I am trying to find where I fit into this in-between time. I need to feel again that I have a personal stake in Objectivism. Btw, what sort of catastrophe do you think would prompt immediate reforms? In my view most catastrophes would only serve to allow the statist viewpoint to increase. (See Sept 11th for example.)

I didn't feel like this topic merited posting on the blog, especially since it is likely to be rambling as I am fighting off a cold and other distractions this weekend. However the topic is extremely important to me on a personal level. Also blog postings should be finished articles, and this is something that I would prefer discussion. As the war in Iraq continues and the discussion continues on television and in the public I keep returning to my original concerns that I voiced after Sept 11th and America's return to patriotism. I saw then that many statist politicians suddenly became great spokesmen for the defense of America, even if previously their foreign policy ideas had been foolish. My initial thought was: these statists do want to protect America, because they want it safe for their control. I had thought that swift victories in the WOT would assure a return of our troops and a boost to our economy, making my fears of statist opportunism invalid. I should say that I am a supporter of Jack Wakeland's idea of cultural colonialism and I see Iraq as a possible victory in that respect. However even as we are successful in the war, I am seeing increasing examples of anti-capitalist successes here in the United States that would threaten to make victories in the WOT somewhat lessened. The FDA has succeeded by its twisted partnering with drug companies, in undermining Americans trust in the free market. Do not be surprised if the FDA proposes an extreme clampdown on pharmaceuticals next year, and the majority of Americans support it. The pharmaceuticals that took part in the charade are mostly to blame unfortunately. I do admit that personal illness (digestive disorders) is making me frustrated to see reforms more quickly in my lifetime. I do admit that I am personally feeling the financial pinch of government idiocies more now than ever before and that biases my thinking. I do admit that my personal goals are for being able to lead my life as freely as possible now. I don't want to make America safe for statist politicians, I want it safe so I can live and flourish. My biggest fear is that I would become like many with declining health that spend a great deal of time complaining about the government, but not capable of accomplishing other goals. (Not that there is anything wrong with complaining about the govt, I just want energy to do other things). When I was enrolled in business school I met many MBA candidates who held strong pragmatist and utilitiarian beliefs about business. How can the business community ever beat back statism when our business leaders keep seeking to partner with the government? Who could be happy employed by one of these fools? Do you know how many major CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are taking part in the presidents Corporate Responsibility campaign? In discussions on privatizing social security with co-workers I met a fairly strong opinion that social security was necessary to help the returning GI's by providing them financial support. This is not the first time that I have seen statist policies defended as "necessary for our defense". That is exactly the platform I expect to see John McCain use when he runs for president. McCain is the most talented of the statist opportunists, and I am certain he would be better at deceiving Americans into socialism than Hillary. In my search for a better doctor I am coming across the enourmity of support for socialized medical care, and no doctors who are committed to their science. I would not care about them, if I had time to go to medical school and find my own cure. But life is expensive, and becoming more so in a world with many egalitarians. I spend all my time just getting by, so I don't have time for returning to school to become a doctor. I am doing my own personal medical research thru private contacts as time allows. There are crimes against capitalism happening here that will have repercussions in our culture and politics (and effect me now). I would rather this stuff happen after my lifetime, not during. I don't have time to speak out in defense of capitalism and continue my personal medical research. On a personal level, I am now feeling more isolated from like minds than I ever have before. This forum is the one of the few connections I have with people with whom I feel a common bond. (And even on here I only really feel close to a few). Seeing how cynical many Americans are, I have doubts about whether many would ever accept Objectivism. I completely sympathize with Dr Peikoff for beggining to feel that public lectures do not grant him enough like minds to make it enjoyable, because I feel the a similar sense of frustration.