dianahsieh

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This delightful post by Jennifer Janisch entitled Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead seems well worth some comment and discussion. (Please do it on "New Critics," not here in the NoodleFood comments.) I remember in high school, my mom was pressing me to write an essay for The Fountainhead scholarship. I have always been a voracious reader and had accomplished some impressive literary feats in the past (I read Gone with the Wind at eight), but I've never, ever liked to read for any reason other than for the sheer pleasure and escape of reading. So the idea of reading an enormous and complex book like The Fountainhead for the purpose of writing an essay for a scholarship didn't really appeal to me at the time, and I told her it wasn't happening. As I look back, I am so glad I stuck to my guns, because knowing how I am, forcing myself to read The Fountainhead would have surely ruined the book for me. The timing just wasn't right, nor was the reason for reading it. But when I moved to New York City exactly one year ago, something compelled me to go to the bookstore and buy it, and after reading a mere few pages, I was completely spellbound. I limited myself to one chapter a night. I savored every morsel. I realized I had never read a book that challenged my political beliefs, my morals, my ethics, my philosophies, my views on humans and humanity, so completely. I realized we normally read books we know we'll enjoy, we know we'll agree with, we know will inspire us. This was different. Before I read The Fountainhead, I was dismissive of any policy or any philosophy that didn't have the well-being of the masses in mind, and although I remain a social liberal and a critic of free-market capitalism, Ayn Rand's arguments were the first that allowed me to truly see the dark side of my belief system, as well as the bright side of hers. It was truly terrifying, to be honest, to see embodied in characters like Ellsworth Toohey, the inherent corruption and ulterior motives behind socialism and sacrifice, and to find myself cheering for the self-interested and steadfast Howard Roark, who never dreamed of sacrificing himself for others and knew achieving his own happiness was the highest of moral virtures. It is an interesting and titillating book, indeed, and as we all know, extremely controversial. Ever since I finished The Fountainhead, I've wanted to engage in discussion with both critics and proponents of Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism, as well as the broader issues of capitalism vs. socialism, and individualism vs. collectivism. I feel newcritics may be the appropriate avenue to do just that. If you feel so inclined to post your thoughts on the philosophy, the politics, or simply the book and characters themselves... Let the conversation begin. The comments posted so far are less-than-delightful, so I really encourage folks to chime in! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002388.html

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This story is too funny. A little background: James "The Amazing" Randi has a brilliant, longstanding million-dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities -- whatever ability they choose, shown via any method they like, only requiring that all involved agree their method would demonstrate it under controlled circumstances. Why is it brilliant? Many have tried, all have failed. So a while back Randi revised the focus of the program toward challenging high-profile 'psychics' by name (maybe defending the honor would entice them the way a cool million doesn't?) and he is also now only considering applicants who have gotten some media attention as well as convinced some academic -- probably because the endless stream of crackpot losers he has examined is boring him to death. Okay, maybe it is really a matter of resources: the crackpot next door doesn't influence the culture like those who get media attention and confuse academics. Anyway, today I saw this story talking about how Randi had set up a remote-viewing test and (to prove no cheating on his part) had published an enciphered clue as to what was in the box. Turns out a cryptographer easily broke his amateur cipher and was able to pass the test, beating out the psychics. The moral of the story is actually a message Randi routinely gives to scientists, who are notoriously prone to being duped while testing paranormalists: if you are in waters where people often fool themselves and others, have a magician on staff dammit! Well, if you are in the realm of hiding information in plain sight, have a cryptographer on staff dammit! Or at least consult someone who has some dealings with security. Even a moderately knowledgeable software engineer would have immediately recognized this as an important problem that has been studied hard by cryptographers. Randi could have written a detailed description and run it through some common and well-designed cryptographic hash function to produce a mathematical "fingerprint" which he could safely publish. Good hash functions are very chaotic and one-way, making it infeasible (read: essentially impossible) to use the fingerprint to figure out the original string as happened in this story. Then when the box is opened, he need only show his description matching the contents and the hash function generating the published fingerprint. While I chuckle at the story, in all seriousness my hat is WAY off to James Randi and his long record of kicking butt and making the world a saner place. At the top of his list of achievements is his bringing about that stark fact which deflates so much silliness: many have tried, all have failed -- and on their own terms. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002380.html

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This story is too funny. A little background: James "The Amazing" Randi has a brilliant, longstanding million-dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities -- whatever ability they choose, shown via any method they like, only requiring that all involved agree their method would demonstrate it under controlled circumstances. Why is it brilliant? Many have tried, all have failed. So a while back Randi revised the focus of the program toward challenging high-profile 'psychics' by name (maybe defending the honor would entice them the way a cool million doesn't?) and he is also now only considering applicants who have gotten some media attention as well as convinced some academic -- probably because the endless stream of crackpot losers he has examined is boring him to death. Okay, maybe it is really a matter of resources: the crackpot next door doesn't influence the culture like those who get media attention and confuse academics. Anyway, today I saw this story talking about how Randi had set up a remote-viewing test and (to prove no cheating on his part) had published an enciphered clue as to what was in the box. Turns out a cryptographer easily broke his amateur cipher and was able to pass the test, beating out the psychics. The moral of the story is actually a message Randi routinely gives to scientists, who are notoriously prone to being duped while testing paranormalists: if you are in waters where people often fool themselves and others, have a magician on staff dammit! Well, if you are in the realm of hiding information in plain sight, have a cryptographer on staff dammit! Or at least consult someone who has some dealings with security. Even a moderately knowledgeable software engineer would have immediately recognized this as an important problem that has been studied hard by cryptographers. Randi could have written a detailed description and run it through some common and well-designed cryptographic hash function to produce a mathematical "fingerprint" which he could safely publish. Good hash functions are very chaotic and one-way, making it infeasible (read: essentially impossible) to use the fingerprint to figure out the original string as happened in this story. Then when the box is opened, he need only show his description matching the contents and the hash function generating the published fingerprint. While I chuckle at the story, in all seriousness my hat is WAY off to James Randi and his long record of kicking butt and making the world a saner place. At the top of his list of achievements is his bringing about that stark fact which deflates so much silliness: many have tried, all have failed -- and on their own terms. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002374.html

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This story is too funny. A little background: James "The Amazing" Randi has a brilliant, longstanding million-dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate paranormal abilities -- whatever ability they choose, shown via any method they like, only requiring that all involved agree their method would demonstrate it under controlled circumstances. Why is it brilliant? Many have tried, all have failed. So a while back Randi revised the focus of the program toward challenging high-profile 'psychics' by name (maybe defending the honor would entice them the way a cool million doesn't?) and he is also now only considering applicants who have gotten some media attention as well as convinced some academic -- probably because the endless stream of crackpot losers he has examined is boring him to death. Okay, maybe it is really a matter of resources: the crackpot next door doesn't influence the culture like those who get media attention and confuse academics. Anyway, today I saw this story talking about how Randi had set up a remote-viewing test and (to prove no cheating on his part) had published an enciphered clue as to what was in the box. Turns out a cryptographer easily broke his amateur cipher and was able to pass the test, beating out the psychics. The moral of the story is actually a message Randi routinely gives to scientists, who are notoriously prone to being duped while testing paranormalists: if you are in waters where people often fool themselves and others, have a magician on staff dammit! Well, if you are in the realm of hiding information in plain sight, have a cryptographer on staff dammit! Or at least consult someone who has some dealings with security. Even a moderately knowledgeable software engineer would have immediately recognized this as an important problem that has been studied hard by cryptographers. Randi could have written a detailed description and run it through some common and well-designed cryptographic hash function to produce a mathematical "fingerprint" which he could safely publish. Good hash functions are very chaotic and one-way, making it infeasible (read: essentially impossible) to use the fingerprint to figure out the original string as happened in this story. Then when the box is opened, he need only show his description matching the contents and the hash function generating the published fingerprint. While I chuckle at the story, in all seriousness my hat is WAY off to James Randi and his long record of kicking butt and making the world a saner place. At the top of his list of achievements is his bringing about that stark fact which deflates so much silliness: many have tried, all have failed -- and on their own terms. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002369.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Paul and I watched Casino Royale last night. It just came out on DVD. (I've minimized spoilers in my comments below.) The plot made more sense to me this time, although I still think some more hint about the French Algerian was needed. (Since he wasn't ever seen, he still doesn't feel real to me.) I love Daniel Craig as James Bond. However, I'm most in love with the portrayal of James Bond as internally conflicted: the sharp rationality and intense emotional control versus the bloody physical brutality of his killings. Both are required of him by his job -- and required simply to remain alive from moment to moment. Yet the conflict threatens his very person, i.e. his soul. That's new for Bond -- and it's very compelling to me. However, I think the movie goes astray starting with the hospital scene. The introduction of the emotional pull of the romance muddies that sharply-drawn physical/rational/emotional conflict. It's not wholly unrelated, of course, but it's still a tangent. (It's as if the writers didn't quite know how to use that conflict for a dramatic climax, so they opted for the more predictable romantic betrayal.) The attraction in the romance also isn't well-justified: it's not clear me to why Bond would choose that woman over any other lovely smart woman, let alone so completely and unreservedly. (While the scene in the train shows her to be his equal, that's not enough for love.) All in all though, I liked the movie even more than I did in the theater. And I'm excited about the new direction for the franchise. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002365.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog It looks like John Lewis' GMU talk has been rescheduled: On April 24th at 7:30pm in the JC Cinema the [College Republicans] will be hosting a lecture by Dr. John Lewis, Ph.D. Lewis is a history professor at Ashland University in Ohio. He will be discussing his article, No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism. This talk was previously scheduled to appear at Mason, but because of its controversial content its original sponsors were no longer able to sponsor it. We have decided to hold this talk because, as a club, we value discussion and debate, both internally among our own members, and externally, with others on campus. We also believe that Dr. Lewis' ideas for winning the war are of interest to our members and the larger Mason community. This talk is being sponsored by the GMU College Republicans, GMU Objectivist Club, and the Objectivist Standard. Please mark your calendars for this exciting event! It will be Tuesday, April 24th, 7:30pm in the JC Cinema! The announcement can be found on Facebook. (Yup, I do have a Facebook account.) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002366.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Thursday, also known as tomorrow for a few more hours, is the deadline for early registration for the 2007 OCON, to be held from July 6th to 15th in lovely Telluride, Colorado. The program looks excellent. Obviously, I'm hugely excited about Leonard Peikoff's six lectures on "The DIM Hypothesis," as well as many of the other general lectures. As for optional courses, I generally choose them first by expected quality of content, then by topic, then by fun. Expected quality of content is based on the reputation of the speaker with me based on prior lectures I've heard, whether live or on tape. As for topic, I tend toward the more philosophical topics, for obvious reasons. As for fun, some lecturers are particularly delightful to see live, e.g. John Lewis, Robert Mayhew, Yaron Brook. Here's what Paul and I are taking this year. We're totally overlapped, except that I'm opting for Robert Mayhew over Yaron Brook. GROUP A The Science of Selfishness by Craig Biddle American Slavery, American Freedom by C. Bradley Thompson GROUP B Two, Three, Four and All That by Pat Corvini Plato's Laws by Robert Mayhew (Diana) The Corporation by Yaron Brook (Paul) GROUP C Atlas Shrugged as a Work of Philosophy by Greg Salmieri. GROUP D The Meaning of Victory: 1945 by John Lewis I'm nearly certain that I'll order The Scientific Revolution by David Harriman and The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant (part 1 of 3): Kant's Theoretical Philosophy by Jason Rheins on CD. I just can't fit them into my schedule. My head would explode if I tried take more than three optional courses per session again. Also, Property Rights in American History by Eric Daniels is sure to be a phenomenal course. However, I won't need it, since I'm in the middle of a full-year "History of Capitalism" course with Eric right now. Simply due to time alone, his OCON course will be a drop in the bucket compared to the two-and-half hours I've been enjoying every week for this academic year. (Yes, you should be turning green with envy! But remember, you can audit the course. It's a bargain, given what you're getting.) Please post a note in the comments if you plan to attend OCON this year! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002360.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Here's an update about the Clemson Institute Summer Conference Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism. (I originally blogged about it here.) In brief, the deadline for admission has been extended to March 19th, graduate students are now welcome to apply, and the schedule of classes has been posted. New Information and Opportunities Available! The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism had updated its website with details about the schedule for our upcoming summer conference, "Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism." Visit our website to view" target="_blank">http://business.clemson.edu/BBTCENTER/cci/schedule.htm">view the full schedule of events during this exciting three-day conference. The Clemson Institute has also opened admission to the conference to qualified graduate students. If you'd like to apply, simply download and fill out the application available on our website and return it via email by March 19. Undergraduates are also still eligible to apply until the new March 19 deadline. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002354.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog The cancellation of John Lewis' lecture at George Mason University has gotten some generally favorable press. The AP carried a story: Professor's Invitation At GMU Pulled, Muslim Complaints The Chronicle of Higher Education had a very good article with some hefty quotes from Dr. Lewis' excellent article "No Substitute for Victory," but the link will only be good for another day or so: Scholar Who Calls for War on Iran Loses a Speaking Gig at George Mason but May Get Another Virginia's Daily Press published an op-ed that mentioned the incident, albeit stupidly: It Says a Lot It's also been noted in the blogosphere. For example: SCSU Scholars: Where are your papers, young student? Jihad Watch: Dhimmitude at George Mason University http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002355.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog The documentary Jesus Camp is now available on DVD. (It's now at the top of my NetFlix queue.) John Stark just forwarded me this scary clip from it. In it, I learned that PowerPoint problems are the work of the Devil. (Seriously. These nutters prayed over their electronic equipment, including in tongues.) I was more seriously disturbed to see a young child -- probably about seven years old -- speaking shamefully of his occasional lack of belief in the Bible. I wasn't at all surprised to see all the pro-Bush political activism from the pulpit, particularly from Ted Haggard. I suspect that his gay-sex-and-drugs scandal has put something of a damper on Christian evangelical designs for political change in America. They need to clean their own house before they can continue to self-righteously clean ours. The second clip was from the documentary Friends of God. It begins with a traveling minister preaching against evolution and for creation. "The Bible is the History Book of the Universe." He is teaching about "the authority of Scripture." We should trust God, not the scientist, he warns. Yet the rank-and-file were quite determined to cloak themselves in the veneer of "creation science." (I guess they don't trust God and His Scripture that much!) They are right about one thing: The Bible demands that we shut down all questions, all doubts, all thought. We lowly humans ought do nothing more than believe and obey. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002350.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Craig Biddle just sent out the table of contents for the upcoming Spring 2007 issue of The Objective Standard. Here it is: From the Editor Letters and Replies "The 'Forward Strategy' for Failure" by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo "The Rise and Fall of Ancient Greek Justice: Homer to the Sermon on the Mount" by Robert Mayhew "Induction and Experimental Method" by David Harriman "Egoism Explained: A Review of Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist" by Diana Hsieh Wow, fancy that last article! What a surprise! (If this post is the first you've heard of it, you're not alone. I told just a very few people about it, even once publication was certain. That was precisely so that I could enjoy foisting this little surprise on my NoodleFood readers.) Here's how Craig Biddle describes my review in his editor's note: Finally, in "Egoism Explained," Diana Hsieh reviews Tara Smith's latest book, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, and finds it to be a welcome addition to the existing literature on the Objectivist ethics--and a sizable challenge for critics of egoism. That's exactly right. In editing my review, Craig did rightly excise some substantial discussions of side-issues. I'll post those here on NoodleFood, when I have a moment to spruce them up a bit. Also, as a delightful coincidence, Tara Smith's excellent book will soon be available as a $25.99 paperback, not just as a $63.80 hardcover. That cheaper paperback is available for pre-order from Amazon; it's scheduled for release on April 30th. The article will not be freely available on the web. So regarding subscriptions, the fine Mr. Biddle notes: If you had a one-year subscription that began with the inaugural issue (i.e., Spring 2006), then the Winter 2006–2007 issue was the fourth and final issue in your subscription. Don't miss the Spring issue; it mails in just a few days! There are three quick and easy ways to renew: 1. Renew online by clicking here. 2. Print and fax (or mail) our PDF order form. 3. Or call us toll free at 800-423-6151. If you've not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the time to act. While supplies last, you can still begin your subscription with the inaugural issue. Subscribe today and receive the first full year of the journal all at once, followed by the Spring 2007 issue a few days later. Or start your subscription with whichever issue you like; just let us know your preference. All in all, I'm really quite honored to be included in an issue of such sure-to-be fabulous articles. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002346.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Paul and I saw 300 tonight. I was seriously disappointed. I was most disappointed aesthetically. The movie failed to connect its loudly-proclaimed broad abstractions to its concretes, mostly notably in the case of the ideas of reason and freedom. Consider a few examples. *** WARNING SPOILER ALERT *** *** WARNING SPOILER ALERT *** *** WARNING SPOILER ALERT *** *** WARNING SPOILER ALERT *** *** WARNING SPOILER ALERT *** *** WARNING SPOILER ALERT *** *** WARNING SPOILER ALERT *** *** WARNING SPOILER ALERT *** *** WARNING SPOILER ALERT *** First, Leonidas was supposed to be uncompromising. He wasn't swayed by the appeals of Xerxes (and the deformed Ephialtes) to be reasonable by submitting to Persian rule. Yet he compromised from the very start, not just by submitting to the mystical demands of the Ephors, but then by circumventing their demands without directly challenging them. The fact that he did so begrudgingly, as a necessity of Spartan political life, shows him to be open to compromise in the name of necessity. So why not compromise with the Persians too? Just because, I guess. Second, the Spartans were repeatedly said to be superb warriors, not just for their strength, courage and skills, but also for their use of reason. However, the training of the youth was not just purely physical, but also mostly the endurance of pains like freezing cold human brutality. Even worse, the training was positively irrational, e.g. the young men had to steal food to live, then would be brutally punished if caught. Unsurprisingly then, the Spartans showed basically no ingenuity in battle in the movie. They relied solely on their strength, skill, discipline, courage, and even indifference to life -- not on any clever tactics. In contrast, Herodotus recounts that the Spartans would often fake retreats, then turn back en masse to slaughter unwary Persians. It's significant that that bit of actual history was omitted from the movie, I think. Third, Sparta was clearly portrayed in the movie as a fundamentally totalitarian society. (That's certainly accurate.) Yet those concrete facts were never reconciled with all the Spartan talk about the value of freedom. So really, what made life under Persian rule so much worse than life under Spartan rule? That totalitarianism was also grossly inconsistent with Sparta's supposed ideal of reason. Unsurprisingly, no rationale was ever offered for Sparta's overwhelmingly militaristic culture: it was just supposed to be obviously superior to a city in which the army is composed of reservist potters and sculptors. Fourth, and perhaps most galling of all, the final heroism of the Spartans was portrayed as nothing short of senseless adherence to duty. The Spartans were forbidden from retreating in battle. They could only stay, fight, and die -- and that's what they did. To retreat was portrayed as obvious cowardice -- yet the movie Spartans had absolutely no rational reason to stand their ground. As recounted by Herodotus, the Spartans stayed for a very rational reason: the unprepared Greek city-states to the south desperately needed time to muster their forces. The Spartans fought at the pass after the betrayal to hold off the Persians for a bit longer. Unlike in the movie, where all were slaughtered immediately, the real Spartans achieved that purpose with their deaths. These failures to connect the abstract ideals of the movie with its concretes was the reason why, I think, the dialogue of the movie often seemed like a disconnected series of stirring but empty one-liners. It was, to put it in terms of Leonard Peikoff's "DIM Hypothesis," very much M1. It aspired to be more than the writers could muster, I think. That's not to say that I didn't like some of the elements of the movie. I very much enjoyed the characters of Leonidas and Gorgo. Plus, those nearly-naked Spartan soldiers were mighty easy on the eyes. I decided not to focus on those better elements of the movie not just because I regard them as inessential, but also because I've already seen much praise for the movie, including from Objectivists. Overall, I thought the movie a serious failure. That was disappointing. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002347.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I know Hannah Krening from Front Range Objectivism's 1FROG discussion group, so I'm particularly looking foward to hearing her play for the first time. Hannah Krening, classical pianist, will present an evening of Romantic piano music on two Saturdays in March in Denver. On March 10th she will perform at Evanston United Methodist Church, 2122 S. Lafayette Street (at Evans, just west of DU) at 7:00 pm. A donation of $10 per person will be requested at the door. On March 17th, Ms. Krening will perform at Chris Finger Pianos, 102 Second Avenue, in Niwot (near Boulder), also at 7:00 pm. Tickets are $10 in advance, $12 at the door. Advance tickets are available at Chris Finger Pianos or e-mail [email protected] for more information. Ms. Krening holds a Bachelor of Music and a Masters degree in Piano Performance. She has taught privately, in college and other school settings, and is a MTNA Nationally Certified Music Teacher. She has performed as a symphony pianist and as a soloist in various locations throughout the United States. The program consists of: Beethoven: Sonata, Op. 27, no. 2, Brahms: Klavierstcke, Op. 119, Schubert: Sonata in A, Op. 120, and Mendelssohn: Variations Srieuses, Op. 54. Portions of the proceeds from the Niwot recital will benefit FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine). For more information, please contact: Hannah Krening at (303)681-2122 or [email protected]. A flyer for this event is available here. You can find out more about FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) at www.WeStandFIRM.org. The site is not yet officially launched, although it's looking pretty good. (I'm the webmaster, so please let me know if you notice any problems with it.) I'll post the official announcement when the doors are officially opened. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002339.html

By Greg from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I watched Gore's award-winning An Inconvenient Truth the other night with some friends. Sigh. Gore's movie is without a doubt the strongest, slickest, most utterly dishonest piece of propaganda I have ever seen. So much so that I was getting depressed because any regular person watching it pretty much should react with something on the order of, "If even half of what Gore says is right, we're all doomed and have to do something NOW!" It has already won Academy awards, it seems set to earn him an honorary doctorate and a Nobel peace prize, and he might even parlay all this rock-star visibility and seeming authority/vision into a winning Presidential run or perhaps some kind of UN Global Environmental Czar position. In the ensuing discussion, one fellow observed that while he could see factual and emotional manipulation, he was "less willing to throw away Gore's data" than I am, and that the badness he could see "isn't enough ... to say there is no baby in the bathwater." While I wasn't claiming Gore gets nothing right, I am indeed quick to find fault and slow to accept whatever truths he offers. As I explained: That's reasonable -- you haven't built up as much inductive data on the deep-green crowd, so I wouldn't expect the same attitude in you. In my case, after seeing many and varied environmentalist scares exhibit spectacular errors and outright dishonesty aimed at harming the life and happiness of mankind (as well as an occasional bit of confirming candor), it is difficult not to draw the conclusion of a rotten philosophic driver. DDT, overpopulation, resources, nuclear energy, recycling, genetically-modified crops, acid rain, global warming, on and on. Consider how Creationists grope for the respect and power of the mantle of science ("scientific creationism", "intelligent design") to push their bad ideas: unlike with real science, they are not interested in discovering the truth, just in rationalizing the "truth" they already believe. Deep greens look exactly the same to me at this point: straining to don the mantle of science to defend and spread their religious convictions, rather than participating in science to discover the truth. For any religious rationalizer, the (religious) ends justify the (dishonest and damaging) means -- and you will find that in spades in both movements. This suggests a way to understand my emotional stance toward Gore, and my cognitive bias away from him in favor of his critics: picture slick Creationist presentations. They will include some solid logic and facts, but also exaggeration, distortion, error, and even intellectually dishonest material. And having identified something as Creationist in nature, you know that the entire project is not reason looking for the truth, but religious dogma looking for a rationalization -- any rationalization, factual or not, logical or not, honest or not, destructive or not. Sure, the better proselytizers tend toward the good poles, but no matter where they land in the spectrum, they are still on a mission of rationalization and not of reason. So if you consider the cause of your (hopefully!) differing levels of eagerness to accept data and conclusions from "scientific" Creationists as against other scientists, you will see the cause of my analogous stance regarding the "scientific" Greens as against other scientists. Poking around before the viewing for someone critically commenting at length on Gore's presentation, I found CEI Fellow Marlo Lewis' blow-by-blow commentary on the movie/book. It is pretty good and matches the above expectations. The biggest complaint I have about it is also one of its virtues: it is exhaustive to avoid the charge of cherry-picking, but that comprehensiveness also tends to pull focus away from fundamentals. On a promising note, a documentary that apparently runs strongly against the alarmists' scientific "consensus" is set to air this Thursday on UK TV (as well as on the web): The Great Global Warming Swindle. Speaking of "consensus," one of Gore's bigger and more insidious points concerns how he and the debate-is-over crowd get a lot of mileage (up to this day) out of citing an extensive survey showing essentially NO peer-reviewed scientific dissent from the human-caused-GW position, as against close to half of non-peer-reviewed articles which do dissent. It is his primary tool to poison the well against skeptics -- in his movie, on Oprah, in articles and interviews. And we hear similar intimidating claims from many quarters. Gore's slide certainly caught my attention when we were watching his movie. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that (way back in 2005) someone tried to replicate that study and only falsified it. This researcher's letter to Science to disclose the falsification and urge Science's retraction of the original study to limit its damage was strangely rejected. His follow-up letter cited the original study's large and unhelpful influence, and also discussed interesting surveys of climatologists which likewise contradicted the debate-is-over consensus position. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002334.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I haven't even had time to read this Christian Science Monitor essay on the 50th anniversary of Atlas Shrugged by Christian economist Mark Skousen, but I thought I should link to it sooner rather than later, as I'd love to see some good letters to the editor written in reply! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002331.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Paul and I have been watching the fourth season of one of our favorite dramas: MI-5. I thought I'd say a few good words about it, particularly since I don't think I've mentioned it before. It's a gripping British spy drama, better than ever this season, I think. It's fundamentally realistic in its characters and plots, never crazy-weird like Alias was. So the drama isn't contrived. Yet it's not naturalistic like Battlestar Galactica: its heroes are not sullied every few episodes in the name of "gritty realism." With rare exception, the agents are genuinely and consistently heroic. (I say that even though I often have substantial philosophic disagreements with their actions and policies.) The drama often revolves around the difficult choices faced by the MI-5 agents, not external dangers, car-chase action, or shocking horrors. Every episode is thoughtful in a way almost unheard-of with American television. If you haven't seen the show yet, you can surely find it on NetFlix. It's also available on Amazon: Season One, Season Two, Season Three, Season Four. They are short seasons, but long episodes. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002332.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This video is amazing: an ingenious construction worker figures out how to build Stonehenge-like structures by very primitive techniques. (Via GeekPress.com and Howard Roerig.) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002318.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I must admit, given all the reading I've done on the historical Jesus and the history of early Christianity of late, I'm rather fascinated by the recent claim that the tomb of Jesus -- with his bones inside -- has been identified. So little is known about the historical Jesus that I'm highly skeptical that Jesus and his family could be positively identified. Perhaps physical evidence of a crucifixion might be apparent with Jesus and perhaps the bones could be dated to within the right time period -- but could anything definitively identify any of these people as the characters from the Gospels? (The Gospels themselves aren't even reliable historical documents!) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002319.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I don't know much about the politics of the various sects of Judaism in Israel, but this NPR story about the demands of the ultra-Orthodox was eye-opening. (I'm not going to recount the story; it's too detailed. I highly recommend reading the article. It's short and interesting.) The description "Taliban-like" does indeed fit these zealots, not just because their demands are borne of insane religiosity that they wish to impose on everyone else by force, but because the particular demands (e.g. for "modesty" and segregation of women) are so similar to those instituted by radical Muslims. According to the article, these ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel are becoming more radicalized -- and more insistent in their demands on everyone else. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ever-more people are taking the irrational demands of their religion ever-more seriously -- and threatening the rest of us with earthly punishments if we fail to submit. Given the way of Islam and Christianity, I'm not surprised to see this trend in Judaism. Still, it's downright frightening. (Via iFeminists.net weekly newsletter.) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002314.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Over the past few months, ARI speakers have occasionally endured some crazed heckling from conspiracy-mongering LaRouchites. (The LaRouchites seem to be completely deranged and insensitive to reality, not to mention thoroughly uncivilized.) Since I hadn't heard about LaRouche for some years, I was curious. I poked around Wikipedia for information about Lyndon LaRouche and his LaRouche Youth Movement. The most interesting source I found was this lengthy article from the Washington Post. If you might run into one of these loonies, it's worth reading in full. Personally, I hope to never see one again. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002309.html

Personally, I'd strongly recommend that you talk to a therapist. Your worries are clearly not related to any particular doubts about the girl in question, but are general fears about marriage. You need to dig into your soul to figure out why you think marriage would mean the loss of your freedom, the end of your life, etc. That's not a rational judgment, however many people have bad marriages. (I don't mean that you're being willfully irrational or immoral. Rather, I just mean that the facts don't support those kinds of conclusions by a longshot, so your emotional response is based on some seriously faulty premises that you need to unearth.) And by all means, do not marry until you figure that out, lest the marriage become a self-fulfilling prophesy. Marriage should never be a trap or a constraint -- and it need not be. Personally, my life would be significantly less happy by at least an order of magnitude (if that makes sense at all) if I'd not married my husband. If circumstances demanded it, I would give up everything else in life to stay with him. That's the amazing value of marriage -- if the two people are able and willing to make that happen. Diana the Uber-Happily-Married Update: One further recommendation: Do not, under any circumstances, simply tell yourself that your feelings are irrational -- and then marry. Even if you understand the issue intellectually, you still need to resolve your feelings first. Otherwise, disaster is likely.

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This summer conference at Clemson promises to be an excellent opportunity for undergraduates to learn about Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the moral foundations of capitalism from some of its most knowledgeable and engaging experts. (And, it's free!) So please forward this message to any undergraduates you think might be interested in applying. 2007 Summer Conference: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism What is the moral basis for the free market? How do individual rights function in a capitalist society? What does the history of capitalism teach us about its moral basis? How is Ayn Rand's view of capitalism unique? The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism is pleased to announce its first summer conference for college students. We invite you to join us for an exciting program of lectures, seminars, and discussions from June 1-5, 2007. Students will participate in an intensive and exciting program exploring the moral foundations of capitalism and Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Students will attend lectures, participate in small-group seminar-style discussions, and question and answer sessions. Outside of class, students can relax and socialize on Clemson's campus. Evening activities will include an Atlas Shrugged casting party, a barbecue dinner, and a career advice discussion. The Clemson Institute will be accepting twenty undergraduate students to participate in the summer program on full scholarships. All housing and meals will be provided on the campus of Clemson University. Attending students are eligible for up to $450 for travel. Reading materials will be provided. Direct any questions about the conference or our programs to [email protected]. To apply to the Clemson Institute's Summer Conference, simply download and fill out the application form and return it by March 5, 2007 to [email protected] or via postal mail to: Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism Summer Conference 165 Sirrine Hall - Box 341310 Clemson, SC 29634-1310 The Clemson Institute has assembled a faculty of leading scholars and teachers who study the moral foundations of capitalism, specializing in fields ranging from history and literature to philosophy, political science, and economics. Our faculty join students for meals and interact with them outside of class for informal discussions and questions. The faculty will be: Andrew Bernstein, Ph.D., Visiting Professor, Marist College Yaron Brook, Ph.D., Executive Director, The Ayn Rand Institute Eric Daniels, Ph.D., Visiting Scholar, Clemson University Onkar Ghate, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, The Ayn Rand Institute C. Bradley Thompson, Ph.D., Executive Director, Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, Clemson University When I first heard about this conference, my immediate thought was "Wow, I wish I could sit in on that, as I'd really love to see those guys teach Atlas." Then, much to my surprise and delight, I was asked to serve as the graduate assistant for the conference. (Of course, I accepted eagerly!) Given the faculty, I expect the conference to be an excellent opportunity for students to expand and deepen their understanding of the moral foundations of capitalism. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002299.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I am presently watching Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus. It is painfully, unbearable slow. I've lost track of the number of scenes in which ten seconds is spent watching people walk into a room from a still camera. And oh, the montages! The slave army hard at work. The slave army in inclement weather. The slave army training for battle. The slave army marching through the mountains. The slave army marching through a field. The slave army enjoying wholesome fun. Apparently, living the brutal and degraded existence of a gladiator-in-training is good for the soul. Although they go a bit wild in their initial revolt, after about two minutes of exhortation by Spartacus, all the gladiators become paragons of respectable virtue. The same is true of the other freed slaves. As a result, camp life is perfectly harmonious and productive. Apart from a few good but anachronistic lines about slavery and freedom, the characters are utterly dull. Kirk Douglas, the supposed hero, is particularly awful. His acting is wooden, he's far too old for the role, and his face is painfully ugly. I think I have about another hour to watch. Ah well, at least my suffering will be over soon. At this point, I might just have to cheer for the scheming, decadent Romans. At least they're interesting. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002300.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog While I have no personal familiarity with LePort Schools, I've heard good things. They are looking for teachers: LePort Schools is seeking full- and part-time teachers for a variety of subjects in our upper elementary and junior high division (Grades 4 – 8) to join our staff in September, 2007. A thriving private school with 200 students, LePort Schools operates three campuses in beautiful Southern California. Our website is www.LePortSchools.com. LePort Schools is a warm learning environment that attracts bright, well-mannered students and informed parents. The right candidate can anticipate training and on-going mentoring; a well-prepared, stimulating curriculum; and small class sizes. LePort Schools offers health and dental coverage, generous vacation time, and competitive salaries. Ideal candidates will possess: An interest in mastering a rigorous academic curriculum A desire to convey knowledge to young minds Strong communication and interpersonal skills An enthusiastic and productive work ethic Teaching certification is not required, but preference will be given to candidates who have experience working with children. Familiarity with Objectivism is also preferred, but not required. While all applicants are thanked for their interest, only those chosen for interviews will be contacted. No phone calls, please. Resumes and cover letters should be emailed to: Lindsay Journo Executive Director, LePort Schools' Upper Elementary and Junior High E-mail: [email protected] http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002301.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Someone recently e-mailed me to ask me about this critique of the Objectivist ethics by University of Michigan philosophy graduate student John Stephen Ku. I've not looked at it in any detail, but I vaguely recall that someone wrote up some substantial comments in reply. Am I right? If so, are they still available? If so, where? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/002302.html