dianahsieh

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog From the Objectivism Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute: OAC IS NOW ACCEPTING REGISTRATIONS TO AUDIT ITS "HISTORY OF CAPITALISM" COURSE ARI's Objectivist Academic Center is currently accepting registrations from those interested in auditing its graduate-level course, HOC (History of Capitalism). The course, which begins this week, is offered via online recording and can be taken from anywhere in the world. This two-semester course, taught by Dr. Eric Daniels, will explore political, intellectual, and legal developments that transformed the United States from a mostly capitalist nation to a mixed economy. By understanding these historical developments, students will learn to analyze the essential nature of government policies and assess their overall effect on a free economy. For more information on auditing HOC, and the Objectivist Academic Center more generally (including a link to the registration form), please visit our auditing page or write to [email protected]. I'm taking the course as part of my studies with OAC. Given the teacher, I have every reason to expect it to be excellent. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001999.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Recently, I had a good opportunity on SoloPassion to dispel the standard myth about the Ayn Rand Archives spread by the Ayn Rand Institute's critics that they only permit ARI-affilited Objectivist scholars to access the archives. Since I thought others might run into the same myth, I thought the following two citations of the Archive by non-Objectivists might be helpful. (For the record, I haven't read either of these papers.) First: Jennifer Burns, "Godless Capitalism: Ayn Rand and the Conservative Movement," Modern Intellectual History, Vol 1, No 3 (2004). Footnote 17 reads: "Details on Rand's political awakening are taken from Biographical Interview with Ayn Rand conducted by Barbara Branden, Interview # 14, tape # 8, Side 1, "Activities in Politics: 1926 to 1952, The Conservatives," pp. 351-5. Ayn Rand Papers, Ayn Rand Archives, Irvine, CA." The Ayn Rand Archives is also cited in footnote 56. That paper is available online to academics. Second: Merrill Schleier, "Ayn Rand and King Vidor's The Fountainhead: Architectural Modernism, the Gendered Body, and Political Ideology," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol 61, No 3 (Sept. 2002). In the general notes on page 327, the author writes: I would like to thank Jeff Britting, the archivist at the Ayn Rand Archives in Irvine, California (hereinafter referred to as ARA), for giving me unrestricted access to the Rand materials when they were still being catalogued. His many perceptive observations and his generosity benefited the current project. That's rather more friendly than the gratuitous swipes found in some other journal. The "ARA" is cited multiple times thereafter, along with Barbara Branden, Chris Sciabarra, and others. This article is also available online to academics. I've also heard of other cases, but those aren't yet in print. If anyone knows of other examples, they are welcome to post them in the comments. I've not spoken to anyone official about the policy of the Archives, so I don't know the Ayn Rand Institute's official policy. However, the above citations clearly show the standard (usually belligerent) claim that ARI permits access to only ARI-affiliated Objectivist scholars to be a myth. It wasn't ever a terribly plausible claim, I might add. Given ARI's mission and programs, it makes sense that they would grant access to regular academics. ARI wants such people to be publishing on Ayn Rand. Significantly, they may be safely presumed not to have some kind of personal ax to grind, whatever their disagreements with Ayn Rand. In contrast, some few people have already sliced and diced Ayn Rand with their dishonest axes. The Ayn Rand Institute has every reason to expect more of the same from them, namely that they would twist information gleaned from the Archives to further misrepresent Ayn Rand's person and philosophy. Such people belligerently demand access to the Archives under the guise of "honest scholarship" -- even while misrepresenting its very policy toward them, loudly proclaiming it to be an insular, cultish refusal to deal with non-Objectivists. That's hardly a sign of fair scholarship on their part. In my view, the resources of the Ayn Rand Archives ought not be spent assisting the dishonest projects of such disreputable scholars. Just consider the obligation it would impose: since the Archives are still under construction and not yet easily available to the public, some honest scholar would be obliged to dig through the Archives to correct the misrepresentations of these dishonest ax-grinders. Not only would that be a huge waste of time, but the correction would likely not spread as far and wide as the lies. (There's already been enough of that, I think.) The far more critical point is the moral principle of the sanction of the victim. The basic purpose of the Ayn Rand Archives is to preserve the genuine record of Ayn Rand's life and philosophy. To allow scholars with a well-established track record of dishonesty about Ayn Rand access to the Archives would subvert that goal. Those scholars can only be expected to twist the facts to provide semi-plausible cover for their dishonest claims. And if they could cite the Archives, they'd surely be taken even more seriously than they are now. Similarly, imagine that a well-known Holocaust denier wanted access to an archive of personal remembrances of Holocaust survivors. Should that archive allow him to comb through their files to find those few bits of information that might be twisted into the illusion of evidence? Absolutely not. Or imagine that an academic was given access to the Thomas Jefferson archive, then blatantly lied about the contents thereof in a fairly popular book. Should that archive allow him access for his next project? Absolutely not. The lies of such scholars would be bad enough, but the impression that those lies are truths supported by the materials contained in the respective archives would be even worse. That kind of damage could take years or decades or even centuries to undo. Notice that in all these cases, the "scholars" have access to more than enough data to correct their own errors on their own. The archive will not make them more honest; it will not change their minds one iota. They are not merely critics, they are liars. Moreover, the fact that more people believe the smears of Ayn Rand and Objectivism than the claims of Holocaust deniers and Jefferson maligners only makes the need to exclude the dishonest scholars from the Ayn Rand Archive all the more pressing: Ayn Rand's reputation isn't yet robust enough to fend off even more lies. Such "scholars" have already done enough damage with their lies: why help them to do more? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001988.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Bad news: A neurobiology professor at UCLA specializing in vision research just gave up his work on primates due to persistent threats from animal rights activists. If justice was a metaphysical law written into the fabric of the universe, those &%*^@! man-haters would all go blind. Then again, I'd be delighted if ophthalmologists simply refused to treat them for even routine vision problems. Better yet, doctors could refuse to treat any known animal rights activist. It's best not to pollute those noble idealists with the fruits of medical experimentation upon animals, right? Let's end the sanction of the victim -- and let the animal rights activists wallow in the plentiful, debilitating, and oh-so-natural diseases of this earth. (Via Slashdot and Doug Peltz) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001986.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Paul just sent me the following: The California legislature has approved a bill to mandate universal (state-run) health care in [California]; eliminating private insurance. We'll see if Schwarzenegger vetoes this one. http://www.sfgate.com/... "On a largely party-line 43-30 vote, the Assembly approved a bill by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, that would eliminate private medical insurance plans and establish a statewide health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Californians. The state Senate has already approved the plan once and is expected this week to approve changes that the Assembly made to the bill." Holy socialism! I'm glad that Paul isn't practicing medicine in California any longer, because he certainly wouldn't practice under such a system. As for the likelihood of a veto, the article also reports, "Schwarzenegger's office said it had no official position on the bill. The governor has said he would propose solutions to the state's health care crisis in his State of the State address next January if he is re-elected." http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001981.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog The Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivism Academic Center is officially accepting registrations to audit the excellent year-long teleconference course on Objectivism taught by Dr. Onkar Ghate, i.e. the "Seminar On Ayn Rand's Philosophy Of Objectivism" or SARPO. Classes are recorded and made available on the web, so you don't need to block off your schedule for the whole academic year. The cost is $1000 for both semesters. That's a steal for 26 weeks of a three-hour class taught by Dr. Ghate! I took the course two years ago. It was truly superb. For more information, see this page. Classes will begin soon -- and space is limited. So don't delay! Update: I fixed the number of sessions, as per Greg Perkins' comment. Also, if you want to know more about how auditing works, you should contact Lin Zinser at [email protected]. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001982.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A little while ago PhilosopherEagle posted a blog entry integrateing the conventions of modern logic with Ayn Rand's distinction between motivation by love and motivation by fear. No really, see for yourself: Tonight, I resumed my study of modern symbolic logic, and I made an important integration with the distinction between motivation by love and motivation by fear. (Harry Binswanger criticized my presentation of Galileo for being motivated by the fear of criticism, so this distinction has been on my mind.) My observation is that the basic motivation of modern logic is the fear of slipping up and making a mistake rather than the value of coming to know the world. I have been puzzled for a couple of months now by many of the conventions of modern logicians. For example, any argument whose conclusion must be true is said to be deductively valid. So if our premise is that apples are delicious, we can validly conclude that John is either a carpenter or not a carpenter. I submit that this is not a valid deductive argument, because it is not an argument at all. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. In "The Logic Book," however, one finds this defense of the standard convention: "To put the point another way, this argument is truth-preserving. It will never lead us from truths to a falsehood because it will never lead us to falsehood--because the conclusion is logically true. There is no risk of reaching a false conclusion here precisely because there is no risk that the conclusion is false" (22). This point is true enough: if we have true premises, we will never deduce anything false from them. But the purpose of logic is not the avoidance any risk of falsehood. It is to guide us as we learn about the world and discover new knowledge. "Truth-preservation" is the wrong motivation for a system of logic. It is because of this motivation that modern logic is almost completely useless in real life. Nice! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001979.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Oh cool, it's irreverent but insightful Bible blogging! The chapter-by-chapter commentary by David Plotz is witty without either being preachy or hostile. The in-progress commentary on each book spans multiple pages, so you'll want to start with the first entries for Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. More will be forthcoming, I'm sure. David Plotz has noticed some of the same delightful tidbits that I've noticed in my reading, such as: "Creeping" is all over these last few verses of Creation. God tells His newly minted man and woman that they rule over world and its creatures, including, as the King James puts it--"every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." What a superb phrase! It's perfect for insects, terrorists, and children. I also wondered about the sins worthy of the Flood: The story of Noah: "The Lord saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on Earth, and His heart was saddened. The Lord said, 'I will blot out from the earth the men whom I created--men together with beasts, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I regret that I made them.' But Noah found favor with the Lord." The mystery of this passage is: What has man done that's so terrible? There's no explanation here, or in the next chapter, which merely says: "The earth became corrupt before God; the earth was filled with lawlessness." What corruption? What lawlessness? It had been a very short time since Creation--how much evil could man have learned? Why would God give up on man so easily? Also, considering how detailed the Bible is about particular human crimes both before and after here, why is it so vague about the antediluvian wickedness? Nothing could top this summary of the story of Lot: This chapter makes the Jerry Springer Show look like Winnie the Pooh. The Sodom business is worse than I ever imagined. Two male angels visit Lot's house in Sodom. A crowd of men (Sodomites!) gathers outside the house and demands that the two angels be sent out, so the mob can rape them. Lot, whose hospitality is greater than his common sense, offers his virgin daughters to the mob instead. Before any rapes can happen, the mob is blinded by a mysterious flash of light. The angels lead Lot, his wife, and daughters out of the city, and God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah with brimstone. Lot's wife looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt. (God may have listened to Abraham's rebuke, but He surely didn't heed it. What of all the innocent children murdered in Sodom and Gomorrah? What of Lot's innocent wife?) But the chapter's not over. After the attempted mass gay rape, the father pimping, the urban devastation, uxorious saline murder, it looks like Lot and his daughters are finally safe. They're living alone in a cave in the mountains. But then the two daughters--think of them as Judea's Hilton sisters--complain that cave life is no fun because there aren't enough men around. So, one night they get Lot falling-down drunk and have sex with him. Chapter 19 poses what I would call the Sunday School Problem--as in, how do you teach this in Sunday school? What exactly is the moral lesson here? The commentaries also contain some interesting and helpful discussions of themes and threads in the text. I've only read the commentaries on Genesis and Exodus so far, but I'll be read the others soon enough. These commentaries aren't a substitute for reading the Bible, but they are a fun refresher thereupon! Just remember: God created "every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth!" http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001977.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I'm so thoroughly pleased to see the tradition of Objectivist speakers at the Ford Hall Forum continue. I'm particularly pleased by the choice of speaker, since I can't imagine a better person for the job than Yaron Brook. Here's ARI's announcement: Sunday, October 22, 2006 A Ford Hall Forum Event Democracy vs. Victory: Why the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" Had to Fail Yaron Brook [After Sept. 11 the Bush administration declared that we must go on a mission to bring freedom to the Middle Eastern nations that threaten us; thus, the Forward Strategy of Freedom. According to this strategy, establishing democracies in key Muslim countries, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq, would spur a revolution in the rest of the Muslim world--a revolution that would bring free, pro-Western, anti-terrorist governments to power. But the strategy has failed. With the rise of the religious Shiites in Iraq, of Hamas and of Hezbollah, and with the electoral victories of Islamic radicals elsewhere in the Middle East, the Muslim world has grown more militant. Why has the Forward Strategy of Freedom failed, and why was failure inevitable? What are the flaws inherent in the strategy? How does it necessarily undermine victory? What motivates it and what strategy should replace it? These are the questions Dr. Brook will address in this talk.] Established in 1908, the Ford Hall Forum hosts public lectures in Boston, Massachusetts, by leading cultural figures, politicians and intellectuals. From 1961 to 1981, Ayn Rand was a frequent invited speaker at the Forum. Several of her lectures were subsequently published as essays in such books as The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. Since her death, Dr. Leonard Peikoff has spoken at the Forum on a number of occasions, most recently in 2003. Dr. Brook will speak at the Forum for the first time this year. Dr. Brook's lecture... will be preceded by several lecture events and a panel discussion, beginning with a campus club talk by Dr. Brook at Tufts University on Friday evening; more details will follow. Location: Ford Hall Forum/Faneuil Hall Boston, Massachusetts Time: 6:30 PM Paul and I will be traveling to Boston to attend. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001973.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog A recent press release from the Ayn Rand Institute, "Medieval Sexual Morality at the FDA," says: Irvine, CA--"The FDA must stop the stalling tactics that have prevented over-the-counter sale of the 'morning-after pill,'" said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "There is no question about the safety of the drug. The FDA's own advisory panel endorsed it three years ago for over-the-counter use. The delays are clearly an attempt by conservative FDA officials to impose their brand of medieval sexual morality on Americans. Such an egregious violation of the separation of church and state is unacceptable in a free country." Personally, I'm baffled as to why we have a system in which I need a prescription for birth control at all. I've been on the pill more-or-less continuously since I was a teenager. So why exactly do I need my doctor to authorize my taking it for yet another year? Oh right, it's because government bureaucrats think me incompetent. Silly me, I forgot! These days, religious conservatives are more than happy to use that regulatory structure to force their values down our throats. And liberals might scream and stamp their feet about some particular policy, but they'll never entertain the idea that the FDA itself ought to be abolished. That's because statists of all stripes are fundamentally allies. Sure, they'll viciously fight for power -- or for this rather than that concrete proposal. Yet they all agree upon the propriety -- even necessity -- of tangled masses of business regulations, paternalistic laws against vices, expensive welfare programs for the poor, elderly, and otherwise downtrodden, and so on. The only disputes are the form of these laws -- if even that. Today, new programs are supported or not solely based upon party loyalties -- as in the prescription drug benefit for the elderly. The power-lusters on both sides are well-aware that expansions of power by their opponents can be molded to serve their own ends once they regain power. So the liberals will use the power of the FDA to reign in those evil drug companies, while the conservatives will use it to control contraception. To put the point another way, this simple example clearly illustrates the absurdity of Randy Barnett's attempt in "The Moral Foundations of Modern Libertarianism" to portray libertarianism as a second-best alternative for pragmatic statists, whether liberal or conservative. Here's the abstract of his paper: Libertarians no longer argue, as they once did in the 1970s, about whether libertarianism must be grounded on moral rights or on consequences; they no longer act as though they must choose between these two moral views. In this paper, I contend that libertarians need not choose between moral rights and consequences because theirs is a political, not a moral, philosophy; one that can be shown to be compatible with various moral theories, which is one source of its appeal. Moral theories based on either moral rights or on consequentialism purport to be "comprehensive," insofar as they apply to all moral questions to the exclusion of all other moral theories. Although the acceptance of one of these moral theories entails the rejection of all others, libertarian moral rights philosophers on the one hand, and utilitarians on the other, can embrace libertarian political theory with equal fervor. I explain how can this be and why it is a strength rather than a weakness of libertarian political theory. Conservatives, neoconservatives, and those on the left who seek to impose by force their comprehensive conception of "the good" neglect the problem of power - an exacerbated instance of the twin fundamental social problems of knowledge and interest. For a comprehensive moralist of the right or left, using force to impose their morality on others might be their first choice among social arrangements. Having another's comprehensive morality imposed upon them by force is their last choice. The libertarian minimalist approach of enforcing only the natural rights that define justice should be everyone's second choice. A compromise, as it were, that makes civil society possible. And therein lies its imperative. This abstract is overflowing with obvious disdain for the philosophic foundations of political theory: Philosophic debates between libertarians are of no significance today. Truth need not be considered, since opposing philosophic foundations can produce "equal fervor" for liberty. Liberals and conservatives should embrace libertarianism not for its truth, but for its capacity to optimize the satisfaction of their desires. In fact, Randy Barnett's pragmatism seems to run so deep that he's unable to see the obvious fact that none of the many varieties of statists are fundamentally opposed to each other. Although statists often viciously fight for power, they share basic principles. That's why they can and do build upon the "achievements" of the statists who come before them, of whatever stripe. That's why both George Bush and Ted Kennedy are committed to government welfare programs: the only difference between them is the particular form of those welfare programs. Ted wants monolithic state control, while George demands the illusion of choice in which all options are helpfully pre-screened by the government. Yet somehow, in the rationalist dreams of a libertarian, both Ted and George might instead opt to totally eliminate government welfare so as to prevent themselves from being "oppressed" by the statism of the other. Oh please. Will the pope have an abortion next week too? If libertarians paid more attention to philosophical principles underlying political theory -- particularly to the facts about human nature and about the world that make freedom necessary to human life -- these rationalistic absurdities might be avoided. If Randy Barnett did that, he wouldn't be able to trot out the standard contemporary divide between "moral rights" and consequences" as if an ironclad brute fact of nature, as he so often does. Nor could he think of politics merely in terms of the satisfaction of magically-given and unquestionable desires. Nor could he offer a string of abstractions wholly disconnected from the facts about the conflicts between statist politicians. And so on. Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath waiting for such a change. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001967.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Within five to ten years, I predict that substantial numbers of seriously Christian women will opt to veil themselves in church (if not elsewhere) as a symbol of modesty and submission. Why? The question of veils is a much-discussed topic in relation to Islam at present. Not all of it is negative: I remember reading reports of fashion designers influenced by Muslim dress in their designs for women a year or so ago. Serious Christians are also increasingly concerned with modesty in dress for women -- and where better to look than Islam? Moreover, Paul (of the Bible, not of GeekPress) clearly requires women to cover their heads in church in First Corinthians 11:2-16: Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. I must admit, I find the logic of all that a bit baffling. That's not important for Christian though, since the instructions are clear enough. In the course of searching for commentaries on this passage, I quickly found this lengthy defense of women veiling themselves in church. (See the "In Modern Times" section.) If I'm right, expect to see more debate on this topic from Christians in coming years. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001969.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Speaking of VanDamme Academy teachers, Luc Travers will be giving two guided tours of The Huntington Galleries (near Los Angeles) this Saturday. A number of friends from Front Range Objectivism were able to attend similar guided tours in Boston during OCON: they all rave about the experience, some even describing it as the highlight of the conference. Lin Zinser told me that Luc's guided tour taught her to understand art conceptually, as opposed to merely responding emotionally, something she's never been able to do before. (Unfortunately, my schedule was so full at OCON that I wasn't able to attend.) Here's the announcement: Appreciating Art, Objectively A Guided Tour of the Huntington by Luc Travers When: Saturday, August 12th, 11am and 2pm Where: The Huntington Galleries and Gardens, main entrance near ticket counter Cost: $10 for tour fee. Museum admission is $15*, $10 for students. Info: www.huntington.org Luc's cell: (949) 813-5287 Please RSVP--the number of participants on the tours will be limited! * A substantial discount will be included if at least 15 people confirm their attendance. This tour will apply the principles of visiting museums and "reading" art that were introduced on my previous tours. The goal is to come out of the museum spiritually refueled, just as you might feel after seeing a good movie. The Huntington is one of the West Coast's great collections of art and is especially strong in 18th and 19th century European and American works. For breaks in your art "reading", the Huntington estate is filled with a variety of incredible gardens (the Japanese garden is especially picturesque). This will be the first in an upcoming series of tours of Southern California Museums. I look forward to seeing you there! Luc told me that he'll accept RSVPs through Saturday morning, but space is limited, so a spot is not guaranteed. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001965.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog I got really sick yesterday. I'm still damn sick today. It's just a cold, but it hit me so hard toward the mid-morning yesterday that I couldn't do much other than lay about and watch movies. So I watched: Bride and Prejudice: An Indian musical version of Pride and Prejudice. It was a very fun production, but I'm sure the story would have been terribly confusing to someone unfamiliar with some version of the original. Lalita Bakshi (i.e. Lizzie Bennett) was far too political. Her relationship with Mr. Darcy wasn't adequately developed. The dialogue suffered at times from being written by someone obviously less brilliant than Jane Austen. However, Mr. Kohli (i.e. Mr. Collins) was super-fantastic. Also, watching the uber-intense Sayid from Lost sing and dance as happy-go-lucky Balraj Bingley (i.e. Mr. Bingley) was priceless. Oddly, and I'm not sure if this is a general feature of Bollywood movies, the movie was highly sexualized in its dances and dress, but the main characters did not so much as kiss. (They leaned and hugged instead.) Can anyone explain that? Sense and Sensibility: This three-hour BBC miniseries had terrible production values, particularly in contrast to the lush Ang Lee movie (with Emma Thompson). Marrianne was well-played, but Elinor was stony rather than restrained. Plus, Elinor was terribly ugly. Mostly though, this version was boring beyond belief: it lacked the gripping drama of the novel and the movie. War of the Worlds: This movie was not as bad as I thought it would be. The incompetent divorced father alienated from his children was sooooo cliche -- and sooooo annoying. The daughter (well-played by the delightful Dakota Fanning) was disturbingly neurotic for a girl under ten. The appearance of the son at the end was bizarrely out-out-place, since he seemed to have been wholly engulfed in a large fireball earlier due to his altruistic determination to bravely sacrifice himself in a futile battle with the aliens. I particularly disliked the way in which the aliens perished: deux ex machina -- or rather bacterium ex machina. (Paul tells me that's the fault of H.G. Wells, not the movie-makers.) Really, shouldn't the aliens have considered the possibility of germs?!? To my great frustration, that sudden ending foreclosed the much-hinted-at possibility of the humans discovering some ingenious method of destroying the aliens. That would have been lovely: existing human weapons might be too primitive to defeat the invaders, but clever humans can find some weakness to exploit if they choose to think rather than run screaming in fear. In general, this movie confirmed by general view of Stephen Spielberg's action movies: he masterfully places his audience in a thoroughly alien world, but doesn't do anything significant in the course of returning them to normality other than place a bunch of random obstacles in the way. Kingdom of Heaven: I'm ready to adopt Orlando Bloom. (He's real man in this movie, not some blonde gay elf with a bow!) The plot isn't terribly original: it's too much like Ridley Scott's other recent ancient epic, Gladiator. And it's not even remotely historically accurate, not even to the customs of the time. (In other words, it whitewashes left and right.) Still, I greatly enjoyed the integrity of Balian, as well as the portrayal of the inhumanity and power-lust of the most outwardly devout Christians. Interestingly, one strong theme of the movie is the independence of morality from God's commands. In other words, it's opposed to Divine Command Theory. (BEWARE: SPOILERS AHEAD!) The hero Balian is motivated to go to Jerusalem to redeem the soul of his wife, unjustly consigned to hell by Christian doctrine for suicide while in the depths of grief over a dead child. Once Balian arrives in Jerusalem, he laments that he hears no call from God: he fears that he has been forsaken. Thanks to some sound advice from his father and the leprous King of Jerusalem, Balian does not languish in despair or pursue the divine further. Instead, he lives a secular life guided by his own moral principles. Most notably, he digs wells and irrigates his bone-dry land--thereby allowing for the creation of substantial wealth by the Muslims, Christians, and Jews working it. Similarly, when he fights to protect Jerusalem, he does not do so because God commands him or even because the city is holy, but because he knows the inhabitants will be slaughtered by the invading Muslims if it falls. (Of course, I wouldn't endorse all that Balian does as moral, but the point is that the movie portrays his path as consistently moral--and moral in an basically secular way.) More generally, the uneasy peace in Jerusalem is made possible by the firm denials by the leprous King of any and all calls to do God's will by slaughtering the infidel Muslims. Like Balian, he pursues a basically secular path, even punishing the Christian fanatics for killing Muslims as far as he is able. In contrast, all the trouble in the movie is caused by Muslims and Christians claiming to be executing the will of God by executing Christians and Muslims, respectively. The Christian fanatics create unnecessary conflicts with the Muslims by attacking their caravans. Since the King lacks the power to restrain these fanatics, the Muslims are forced to respond. The Muslim political leader clearly prefers the old peace made with the now-dead King: he's shown sharply resisting pressure from his religious cleric to retake Jerusalem. Still, Saladin is forced into war. Even after the slaughter of the fanatical Christians, the two sides are committed to fighting--and the result is mass death and destruction for both sides. So the basic message from all that is that morality based upon adherence to God's divine commands results in conflict, suffering, and death, whereas moralities based upon some kind of conscience or reasoning yield peace, prosperity, and life. Notably, the movie clearly portrays the necessity of all sides renouncing the authority of God's commands, in that even a minority of one side pursuing divine commands will result in bloody conflict. The most clear statement of the relationship between God and morality comes toward the end of the movie. During the siege of Jerusalem, Balian declares that they must burn the bodies of the dead, lest the living be infected with disease. While he knows that such is contrary to Christian burial practices, he openly declares that God will understand--and that if He doesn't, then He's not God. In other words, God's moral demands can and ought to be ignored when they fail to conform to the facts. Pretty good, no? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001960.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog For those of you who haven't seen Dr. Yaron Brook's fantastic "State of ARI" presentation (or even haven't seen it lately), you'll want to check out the just-updated "About ARI page on the Ayn Rand Institute's web site. It lays out the essentials of that "State of ARI" talk, summarizing ARI's overall strategy and particular programs. While I'm always delighted to see such a small organization doing so much, keep in mind that this text version is no substitute for the excitement of seeing the full talk live and in person. Also, for those of you who saw Dr. Brook give the latest version of "State of ARI" at OCON, you'll notice a new program under "Going Forward": Expansion of ARI's campaign to promote a U.S. foreign policy of self-interest. This effort will entail a significant expansion of our advocacy work on college campuses, in public forums, through the print and electronic media, and with policymakers and academics. Excellent! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001961.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Sascha Settegast recently posted a lengthy blog entry on on patriotism. Here's a bit of an appetizer: Patriotism commonly is understood as "love for the fatherland". From this point of view patriotism mainly is an emotional disposition. It consists in feeling somehow "proud" of the country you live in. Tragically, most people today have no sufficient idea of their country's history, ideological makeup, and other things that could lead one to be legitimately proud of it. Instead, their pride is a seemingly causeless sense of "belonging". Ask people in the street why exactly they are proud of their country. If you can get any answer out of them at all, it will be insignificant. What these people evade is the fact that patriotism is not merely an emotional, but primarily an intellectual issue. It does not merely consist in feeling "good" about one's country without giving reasons. One should know what is good about one's country, and reversely, one also should know what is bad about it--and why. Since "good" and "bad" are value judgments, patriotism thus concerns itself with values, and especially--but not exclusively--with political values. I haven't thought much about patriotism, so I can't say much other than (1) that I like that approach and (2) that the whole post is an intriguing foray into the topic. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001958.html

I recently blogged a very interesting Wired article on just that topic. Thieves have found multiple ways of stealing cars protected with RFID chips -- and the victims are often screwed by their insurance companies, since those cars are supposed to be impossible to hotwire.

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog This NY Times article is a fascinating look at the causes of the robust health enjoyed by modern Americans. Although medications are helpful, the fact is that we suffer from the diseases themselves far less often, far later in life, and far less severely than did our ancestors. So what explains that? Scientists suspect that better living, particularly better nutrition and fewer serious diseases (thanks to vaccines) for fetuses and babies (i.e. through age two) is responsible. Fascinating! (Hat tip: Virginia Postrel) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001949.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog The Ayn Rand Bookstore is selling two of Leonard Peikoff's excellent lecture courses at a substantial discount: Induction in Physics and Philosophy By Leonard Peikoff These historic lectures present, for the first time, the solution to the problem of induction--and thereby complete, in every essential respect, the validation of reason ... (13 hrs., 42 min., across 7 sessions, with Q & A) Audio CD; 14-CD set: Regular price: $210 Sale price: $145 Audiocassette; 12-tape set: Regular price: $180 Sale price: $125 The Dim Hypothesis: The Epistemological Mechanics by which Philosophy Shapes Society By Leonard Peikoff This 15-session course--part lecture, part discussion--was presented live to a worldwide audience by phone and on the Internet. It is based on Dr. Peikoff's The DIM Hypothesis (book-in-progress), in which he looks at the role of integration in the culture and in practical life ... (22 hrs., 9 min., with Q & A) Audio CD; 30-CD set: Regular price: $310 Sale price: $215 Audiocassette; 15-tape set: Regular price: $265 Sale price: $185 The sale ends on October 1st. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001950.html

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Global warming is being blamed for all sorts of crap. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001948.html

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Medical researchers are developing a clever new drug-delivery device called the "roboscallop": A device that mimics a sea scallop -- propelling itself by alternately sucking and blowing -- could one day carry drugs to hard-to-reach parts of the human body. "Our motor has no moving parts and can be powered remotely with no connecting wires," says Claus-Dieter Ohl, a physicist at the University of Twente in the Netherlands who led the team that built the device. The so-called "roboscallop" consists of a tube a few millimetres long and about 750 microns in diameter that is closed at one end and contains a bubble of air. Submerging the tube in fluid and bombarding it with sound waves causes the bubble to expand and contract, alternately sucking and blowing liquid from one end of the tube. The process generates thrust because fluid enters the tube from a wide angle but is expelled as a narrow jet. "It's how a scallop moves," explains team member Rory Dijkink. "When you watch our device, it looks as if it is making two steps forward and one step back."... Because the roboscallop is powered by sound waves, it needs no internal power source or connecting wires. "You could drive one inside the human body by placing the skin in contact with a loudspeaker," says Ohl. The sound needed to drive the device is loud but bearable, the researchers say. Anyone who's seen Greg Salmieri's eerily realistic imitation of a value-seeking scallop at his 2006 OCON course on Objectivist epistemology will know exactly how this works. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001944.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog The newsletter of the Ayn Rand Institute, Impact, does not merely report upon the ever-growing successes of the Institute. Each issue also contains some philosophic meat, whether an interview with an ARI scholar (like Dr. Ghate or Dr. Mayhew) or an extract from a recent lecture or essay. I particularly enjoyed the two extracts from Dr. Tara Smith's recent ARI lecture "Passing Judgment: Ayn Rand's View of Justice" in the most recent issue. (That lecture is available for free to registered users on the ARI web site. The full lecture plus Q&A is available for purchase from the Ayn Rand Bookstore.) The first extract, quoted below, concerns the importance of moral judgment -- a topic near and dear to my heart. The second is a discussion of the ways in which egalitarianism subverts the proper demands of justice. Of course, both of these issues are covered in Dr. Smith new book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. However, I haven't read the chapter on justice yet: I was too busy to read anything at OCON, so I'm still in the middle of rationality. Moreover, I enjoy reading the isolated tidbits, since then I can more easily mull them over than if I'm plowing my way through a full book or lecture. So here's what Dr. Smith says about the importance of moral judgment, as extracted in Impact: We are normally told that it's wrong to judge. There's an acute taboo against judging people; "judgmental" has become a dirty word. Yet the need for justice shows that you must exercise your judgment on other people in order to figure out how to deal with them. One way of failing to be just is by deliberately depriving others of their deserts--stealing their money, violating contracts, rigging elections, or passing over a deserving candidate to give a promotion to a friend. These are the most conspicuous sorts of injustice. But another way of being unjust is by simply sitting back and never passing judgment in the first place. While this may not look as ugly or smell as foul, it is every bit as unjust and every bit as destructive. Adopting a policy of being non-judgmental--" who am I to judge?"--or fence-sitting as an agnostic is incompatible with the demands of justice. As a statement, such a posture is a lie, and as an action (or more accurately, as a default on action), it is self-defeating. That policy would be dishonest insofar as it ignores the reality that individuals are different from one another and that those differences matter to your life. Such a policy would be self-defeating insofar as, by not condemning a person's bad character or negative traits, you are lending those traits shelter, lending them oxygen--you are helping to sustain things that work against your interests. By the same token, by failing to acknowledge and encourage the good in others, you are depriving it of oxygen, of support that can help to sustain it. Ayn Rand herself put this eloquently. Speaking of judging people's moral character, she wrote: "When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you--whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?" She proceeded to explain that to retreat into a "judge not" posture "is an abdication of moral responsibility; it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself." ("How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?" from The Virtue of Selfishness) The fact is, we need to be discriminating. We need to judge others objectively, to be sure, but emphatically: we need to judge. Ayn Rand denounced neutrality even more vividly: "To withhold your contempt from men's vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement..." (Atlas Shrugged) Failing to condemn those who deserve it is counterfeiting insofar as it pretends that these people are better than they are, that they offer value--just as a person passing out counterfeit currency pretends that it has value. Correlatively, to withhold admiration from men's virtues is embezzlement. It is taking something for nothing, without paying: you benefit from their virtues, but you offer nothing in exchange--not even your acknowledgment of their virtue. That is what a moocher does--a sponge, a freeloader; not a trader, who gives value for value. The reason I think it's useful to see the issue in these stark terms is that, when a person is tempted to that neutral posture, he doesn't normally think that what he's considering is anything like counterfeiting or embezzling; these are felonies, after all! The person simply thinks, "This guy isn't really so impressive, he's not so hot"; or: "I'm just being lenient, I'm cutting somebody a little slack." Yet in fact, this is what's going on. When you don't judge and treat others objectively, you are engaging in a fraud. Perhaps my favorite aspect of Dr. Smith's work in ethics is her persistent invitation to the reader to ask himself: How does this principle apply to my own life? Am I falling into any of these traps? How can I do better? She challenges her readers without threatening them. (That's a delicate skill!) Just so folks know, a subscription to Impact requires only a small donation to ARI. I'd strongly recommend a larger donation than the minimum, since ARI is doing so much great work promoting Objectivism in our culture. (Oh, and did I mention that our very own Don Watkins writes for Impact? He's the Assistant Editor!) http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001941.html

Let me suggest that you actually bother to learn something about Ms. Jolie's motives behind her humanitarian causes before (and instead of) tossing off explicitly ignorant remarks in defense of her. Even a casual peek reveals a revolting stench of altruism.

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Just in case anyone is still wondering whether Objectivists substantially differ from libertarians on matters of policy, just consider what Dr. Tom Palmer says about Israel's invasion of Lebanon. (Dr. Palmer is a Senior Fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute). On his blog, he writes: With the rest of the world I have watched in horror at what is happening in Lebanon. Hezbollah, supported by the extremists in Tehran, has goaded Israel into striking, not only at Hezbollah, but at the innocent Lebanese, as well. The Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure throughout the country and the destruction of the lives of innocents are simply unconscionable. ... I pray that the Israelis rethink their approach and stop the attacks. Now consider the remarks of Dr. Onkar Ghate, Senior Fellow at the Objectivist Ayn Rand Institute, in a recent op-ed: To achieve peace in the Middle East, as in any region, there is a necessary principle that every party must learn: the initiation of force is evil. And the indispensable means of teaching it is to ensure that the initiating side is defeated and punished. Decisive retaliatory force must be wielded against the aggressor. So long as one side has reason to think it will benefit from initiating force against its neighbors, war must result. Yet this is precisely what America's immoral foreign policy gives the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah reason to think. ... Only when the initiators of force learn that their actions lead not to world sympathy and political power, but to their own deaths, will peace be possible in the Middle East. Obviously, wars cannot be fought without harm to civilian populations. Governments and their militaries are do not exist in some separate dimension from civilians, such that they might be uniquely targeted by an invading force. Enemy governments are thoroughly integrated into the territory over which they rule, depending upon its wealth, hospitals, roads, factories, trains, farms, ports, industry, people, and more. That's why quickly and decisively eliminating the threat posed by an enemy nation cannot but require the bombing of so-called "civilian" targets. Moreover, without active support and/or tacit submission from a majority of the civilian population, no government could maintain its grip on power. That's why the vast majority of the population of an aggressive enemy nation are not morally innocent bystanders. The sometimes-awful luck of genuine innocents in wartime, such as young children or active dissidents, is a terrible tragedy. However, the party responsible is not the nation defending itself but rather all those who made such a defense necessary, particularly the countrymen of the innocents complicit in or supportive of the aggression of their nation. Of course, all the same considerations apply to terrorist organizations allowed to operate by a nominal government unable or unwilling to control them. Oh, and in case it wasn't clear, upon what theory of war does libertarian Tom Palmer base his not-so-well-concealed pacifism? None other than just war theory. In the comments, he writes: It is hardly a modern position that in war, no civilians must be hurt. Quite the contrary. The medieval rule was that, in general, noncombatants were not the legitimate targets of violence. It is the modern position (dating from the French Revolution), not the medieval consensus, that civilians are legitimate targets, since it is "nation against nation," rather than ruler or dynasty against ruler or dynasty. I agree that sometimes war is necessary and justified, but I do not agree that it is legitimate to seek to attack the civilian population of a foreign state. For the proper response to that whole Christian mess, I cannot do better than to point my readers to Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein's article "Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense -- yet again. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001938.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Via this Volokh Conspiracy post, I found this interview with Hezbollah's Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah. Starting with Mohammed himself, Muslim leaders have a long history of lying when it suits their purposes, so I think his claims must viewed with some skepticism. Nasrallah claims widespread but quiet support from Arab rulers and people: [Nasrallah] ... Today, I do not expect anything from certain Arab rulers. Now if you ask me about what I expect from the nation, I know that if you examine the hearts of all people in the Arab and Muslim nations, they are with us. They may sit in front of television screens, cry, and show emotions. If they hear good news, they may stand up, clap, and show joy; if they hear sad news, they may cry and feel sad; and if they have the chance to show genuine emotions, they would do so. I have no doubt about this. I am even certain that some sons, daughters, and wives of some Arab rulers are with us. But I tell the Arab rulers, I do not want your swords and I do not even want your hearts. To say it in Lebanese slang, the only thing I want from you is leave us alone. Sit on the fence and have nothing to do with us. You have said what you said, thank you, go and rest. Today, there is a war that was imposed on Lebanon whose aim is to liquidate everything called resistance and resistance men in Lebanon and punish Lebanon for the defeat it inflicted on Israel. In fact, the war on Lebanon aims at liquidating the Palestinian cause. Everybody knows that the wide-scale uprising in Palestine erupted following the victory in Lebanon. ... Unlike our appeasing politicians and intellectuals, Nasrallah knows that the failure of the Arabs to speak out against Hezbollah is a victory for Hezbollah. Evil does not require widespread enthusiastic support to flourish, but only a lack of opposition. That's why the refusal to speak out against evil is to support it. As Ayn Rand said in "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?" (in the The Virtue of Selfishness): Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man's character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil. It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men's virtues and from condemning men's vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you--whom do you betray and whom do you encourage? Even more startling were Nasrallah's claims about the willing complicity of the Lebanese government: [Nasrallah] ... Let me go back to your question about not telling them [the Lebanese Government] or asking them. First, the government statement, on the basis of which we participated in the government, talks about the Lebanese Government's endorsement of resistance and its national right to liberate the land and the prisoners. How could a resistance liberate prisoners? Go to George Bush for example? I cannot and will not go to George Bush. When you talk about the resistance's right, you are not talking about the Foreign Ministry's right. You talk about an armed resistance, and you establish in the government statement its right to liberate the land and the prisoners. So, I represent a resistance and I have weapons. This was the government statement according to which the government won the vote of confidence from the Chamber of deputies. That was the first point. ... So the current government is not opposed to aggression against Israel. I'm not surprised. And: [Nasrallah] ... However, there are two issues that can stand no postponement. The first is the prisoners' issue, for this involves humanitarian suffering. The second is any attack on civilians. I told them on more than one occasion that we are serious about the prisoners issue and that this can only solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Of course, I used to make hints in that respect. Of course I would not be expected to tell them on the table I was going to kidnap Israeli soldiers in July. That could not be. [Al-Jazeera] You told them that you would kidnap Israeli soldiers? [Nasrallah] I used to tell them that the prisoners' issue, which we must solve, can only be solved through the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. [Al-Jazeera] Clearly? [Nasrallah] Clearly. Nobody told me: no, you are not allowed to kidnap Israeli soldiers. I was not waiting for such a thing. Even if they told me no you are not allowed [nothing would change]. I am not being defensive. I said that we would kidnap Israeli soldiers in meetings with some of the key political leaders in the country. I do not want to mention names. When the time comes for accountability I will mention names. They asked whether this would resolve the prisoners issue if this happens. My answer was that it was logical for such an act to solve the prisoners' issue. I assure you that our assessment was not wrong. I am not being stubborn. In the entire world, tell me about any state, any army, or any war that was waged because some people kidnapped two soldiers, or even took hostages, not military soldiers. Tell me about a war that was waged against a state because of two soldiers. This has never happened in history. Nor has Israel done it anytime before. However, what is happening today is not a reaction to the kidnapping of two soldiers. I repeat that this is an international decision and an Arab cover. It is a decision that has to do with...[changes thought]. I stress to you that had we not captured two soldiers in July, which could have happened in August, September, or some other time, the Israelis would come to this battle and would create for it any pretext and any excuse. The issue of disarming and finishing the resistance could not be achieved domestically, regionally, nor at the negotiating table. The Americans were well aware that this issue cannot be addressed domestically. Therefore, the Lebanese were told to step back and to let Israel terminate and disarm Hezbollah. But a cover was needed. So they provided an international and an Arab cover. This is what the issue is about. Finally, I will tell you how any resistance in the world operates. If I want to kidnap or capture two Israeli soldiers, the political leadership would make the decision and hand it to me, but even my brothers [in the leadership] should not know that this would happen at such a time and such a place. If 60 to 70 people know such details, would a capturing operation be successful? No, no such operation would be successful, let alone when informing a government of 24 ministers, three key leaders, political forces, and political blocs. On the table of dialogue, we hold discussions, and only one hour later the minutes of the sessions become available to [foreign] embassies. So do you expect me to tell the world I am going to capture [soldiers]? That's something of a muddle, but the gist seems to be that the Lebanese government supported armed resistance against Israel and knew of general plans to kidnap Israeli soldiers, but didn't know of the particular plans that ignited this conflict. If that's true, then the Lebanese government is even more guilty than I thought. While I wouldn't be shocked by that, Nasrallah's claims might be self-serving lies. (That too has a long tradition in Muslim politics, starting with Mohammed.) He might wish to spread some of the blame for the current conflict to the Lebanese government, so as to deflect criticism from Hezbollah. Or he might be trying to more closely connect Lebanese government with Hezbollah, so that the Lebanese government will defend Hezbollah against Israel. In any case, the Lebanese government has been in bed with Hezbollah for quite some time now, as this ARI letter to the editor observes: Dear Editor: President Bush is urging Israel to preserve the fragile government of Lebanon, which was recently chosen in democratic elections supported by Bush himself. But Israel should do exactly the opposite. Hezbollah, the Iran-sponsored Islamic terror group now under attack by Israel in Lebanon, is part of the Lebanese government. Twenty-three of Hezbollah's members were elected to parliament, and two of its members were given cabinet positions. A government that tolerates the operations of a terror group within its country, that does nothing to stop it from launching rockets on its neighbor's cities, and that further allows its presence in the parliament and cabinet, has no legitimacy at all. If the Lebanese are ever to have a legitimate government and lasting peace with Israel, they will have to show that they, like Israel, will not tolerate Hezbollah any longer. David Holcberg Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved. To put the point bluntly: Any government that includes leaders of a terrorist organization in its cabinet is definite on the "against us" rather than the "with us" side of this conflict. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001937.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog An announcement from Powell History: For readers of [ Powell History Recommends Newsletter] that have children, or who know homeschoolers or parents who would like to have their children learn history properly, I'm thrilled to be able to officially inform you for the "Remote History Program" of the VanDamme Academy, beginning this fall! This program, an integration of the unmatched VanDamme Academy History curriculum and the delivery platform developed by Powell History, will make it possible for students anywhere in the world to enjoy the story of man's past. Please see the VanDamme Academy website for more details, as they become available. Regarding the excellent First History for Adults, Scott says: Thanks in part to the great interest from OCON attendees, a new session of "A First History for Adults" has just started. This fourth group of students of Part 1, The Story of America has just completed its second class, and it is moving ahead twice-weekly during the summer. There's still time to join this session, by using the registration page. If you've been thinking about taking "A First History for Adults," but you haven't managed to fit it in, keep two things in mind: 1) You can take the class via the web-based recordings. If you don't have time for lectures twice a week, this way you can pace yourself. 2) The *last* session of Part 1 begins in September, and it will run Tuesday evenings. Go to the registration page to join 1HFA1-5! 100% of the NoodleFoodlers who've tried "A First History for Adults" strongly recommend it! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001936.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Did Fyodor Dostoyevky ever clearly argue -- whether himself directly or through one of his characters -- that morality is impossible without God? I've often heard that he did, but I can't find a clear reference. However, I did find this page: Dostoevsky Didn't Say It. Does anyone know the real scoop? http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/001935.html