Signs Of Backbone... Or Something

I'm hesitant to read too much good into anything I read nowadays, unless it contains positive a mention of Objectivism and/or selfishness. Because that's the litmus test, my friend. Anything less, and I don't know who I'm dealing with. Nonetheless, I'm still heartened by two stories:

Number One

Our Senate Finance Committee voted down the public option. Woo-hoo! Thank goodness; what a terrible idea it is.

Are Republicans simply being bought off by the insurance industry? I don't know, but why shouldn't they be? Insurers know their very future and prosperity is at stake here. That would be like saying a murder defendant hiring a defense lawyer is buying off the legal system. The only difference is, murder defendants have more rights: murder is an actual objective crime, guilt must be factually proven in a court of law, and legislators don't pass laws outlawing your right to defend yourself (i.e. McCain-Feingold). Business can be tried and convicted simply by passing a new non-objective law that arbitrarily makes something illegal.

One of the public option's supporters, Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, sounds like quite the obnoxious altruist:

Rockefeller said that unfair practices by insurance companies required a not-for-profit alternative that would give consumers a lower-cost option and, in some cases, the only coverage they could get.

"They're getting away with banditry. They revel in it," Rockefeller said of tactics by insurance companies to avoid covering high-cost or high-risk consumers.

"I feel so strongly about it because it makes so much sense," he said. "The people I represent need this, because they're helpless" in terms of health insurance.

Rockefeller is confusing banditry with free choice. Companies do not have a moral obligation to cover anyone, or to continue coverage if they choose not to, unless they specifically agree to do so in a prior contract. On the other hand, forcing companies to do the same: forcibly extracting goods and services that would not otherwise have been voluntarily offered, is banditry.

I suspect that if the grandson's policies were put into action, the grandfather's fortune would never have existed; Standard Oil would have been strangled by taxation, regulation, and antitrust, instead of being the great market innovator it was.

Do you want to know what "helpless" really is?

• Helpless is needing care and watching liberals try to push for socialized medicine rather than putting their money where their ideals are and creating a charitable foundation to help you.
• Helpless is watching people like Rockefeller attempt to railroad thuggish legislation through the Senate on waves of pity.
• Helpless is having the government prevent you and your insurance company, or you and your doctor, from engaging in a voluntary arrangement to provide care on terms you both agree on, or having states thwart interstate insurance competition.
• Helpless is being a doctor or insurer, and feeling the tug of being pulled towards a sacrificial altar where you will be offered to the "public good", instead of being free to dictate the terms on which you will live your life and offer goods and services.
• Helpless is being enslaved to pay for the needs of others via taxation, and watching the economy be wrecked by other government actions, so that you have less money available for personal health care.

Government manufactured this crisis, and now they want to add more of it?? I don't think so.

Number Two

Health care workers in the Socialist State of New York protested against being forced to get vaccinated. They actually said out loud that the state does not own their body! Now, there may be justification for disease control if it is a mass event that approaches a crisis level and hampers the very functioning of society and government. But we are hardly there yet. Good job, people!

The Bold Squirrel

This enterprising squirrel apparently wanted part of my lunch today. He's fit and trim considering he's probably been eating handouts all summer.

Trail Glyphs #2

I see human, bike, deer (too small for elk, I think), and ATV with tire chains among the prints on this trail. Taken at Vail ski resort during a run.

Intel USB Co-Inventor Alay Bhatt Video

This is a great commercial, and a recognition of how arcane hardware specifications can sometimes turn into innovations that have a huge positive impact on our lives, and on the fortunes of the companies that develop and use them.



Did Intel and their partners create this phenomenally useful idea because the government establishes regulatory guidelines? Is it because the Computer Czar defined a National Serial Bus Policy, and used coercion and public funding to herd the industry into producing an easy way of connecting electronics (its policy with the energy, food, and auto industries)? No, they do so precisely because the government does not do those things.

Pick an industry that is vibrant and productive, and supplies good value for the money, and I'll show you an industry with little regulation beyond protection of contracts and intellectual property: Internet, computer hardware, computer software, clothing.

Show me an ailing industry with frustrated customers, flat or increasing pricing, flat growth, and constant crisis (real and imagined), and I'll show you an industry hampered by government regulation and interference: automobiles, energy, finance, health care, insurance.

All industries are a mix of good and bad, freedom and regulation, due to the history of our markets and government's pervasive influence on our lives. But industries will prosper to the degree they are free of government coercion. And the good ones could be even better, if remaining government coercions were removed.

America should keep this lesson in mind when pondering issues such as the looming prospect of massive new government interventions in health care.

We should remember that when government steps beyond the line in the sand represented by contract, intellectual property, and standard criminal law, it moves from protecting free thought to hindering free thought, and to policies that are morally wrong because they interfere with the individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This line has become blurred, and it is crucial to the fight for individual rights that it be clarified again. This time, it is critical to our very health and survival.

Lizards, Western Colorado

These two lizards are close to being mirror images of each other, and bring to mind motifs from western art and crafts. The photo was taken outside of Fruita, CO near Colorado National Monument, an area that is similar to Moab for its red rocks, arches and many trails.

Obama Threatens Iran With Even Deeper Frowning

Sorry, I just can't take our own President seriously. Barack Obama's already accomplished record of not protecting our individual rights will make us even more of a laughing stock than George Bush did.

How can I expect someone who does not protect our health care choices, our free speech, and stubbornly thinks the finance industry is still insufficiently regulated, to protect our rights when it comes to foreigners for whom multiculturalism demands even more capitulation?

Meanwhile, amid the open chants of "Death to America!", the Iranian government continues to thumb its nose at the West, owing its continued existence to the fact that our governments (past and current) have absolutely no clue what drives the world and makes the difference between life and death: ideas and the courage to put them into practice.

The Islamists have the wrong ideas, but they certainly don't lack the conviction to act on them, and that is why they are winning the moral war, and leading the greatest nation on earth around by the nose.

Elephant Head Flowers

Zoom in and you'll see how this flower got its name. This photo was taken in the alpine basin below Mount Lindsey.

New Ayn Rand Institute Web Site

This new web site further reinforces my opinion that the Ayn Rand Institute rocks. The new site is called Principles of a Free Society, and is geared specifically to clarifying the intellectual issues surrounding the fight for freedom in this country. From the site's home page:

A free society requires a limited government that enacts and enforces objective laws for the sole purpose of protecting individual rights

Primary issues include a separation of:

• Church and State
• Science and State
• Education and State
• Economics and State

Right on! This does not sound like the Republican platorm ;), but it should be, if they really want to stand for freedom.

Dollhouse Season Premiere Tonight

I'm looking forward more to Dollhouse tonight at 9 EST/8 Mountain than Michael Moore's new sob fest starting October 2nd. I'd also watch a cage match between Echo and Moore.

UPDATE - Wow. That episode was a roller coaster ride. Great fun.

I think what I like about this series is that, in addition to the interesting stories and action, not to mention attractive talent, it turns on issues of mind and conscience.

I'm not sure that it has quite the moral center of Whedon's Firefly, where captain Mal is sort of a trader/thief with a heart of gold. In Dollhouse, each person struggles on their own to discover where they stand. The situations are intentionally ambiguous from a moral standpoint, and that is both interesting, in that characters must rise to the occasion, but also a bit of a drawback, because it's less easy to root for anyone in particular. Nonetheless, I find it entertaining and interesting.

Cool Golfball Daisies

I saw these flowers on a run in Centennial Cone Park near Idaho Springs. I haven't been able to find out what they are, but they sure are interesting-looking.

Stained-Glass Sumac

From the South Boulder Creek trail, (oddly enough) south of Boulder CO.

Objectivist Round Up #115

The Little Things is hosting this week's Objectivist Round Up, which is a blog carnival of posts written by Objectivist bloggers.

If the philosophy new to you, don't take the word of liberals at Huffington Post for what it is (since have to keep correcting them), see for yourself!

Snowman, Evergreen CO

This poor guy does not realize he will be melting in a few days when autumn weather returns. However, he appears happy just to be in Colorado... sort of like me ;)

South Boulder Creek - Mesa Trail Run

This run was 15.3 miles, with 1,260 feet of gain including ups/downs. Most of the gain/loss is in the last 2 miles, when ascending from the plains up to the Mesa Trail.

I started this run at 1:00 PM on a sunny day, so it was warm during the first half of the run -- a gradual 7.5-mile uphill -- and in spite of two bottles of water I became dehydrated, bonked, and ended up walking portions of the last 3 miles. My throat was dry and breathing became difficult. Hopefully it's not asthma. I don't think so, since I run in the dry air above 10,000 feet with no such trouble. However, I don't often run in hot weather. In fact, that's one reason I like running up high and towards the end of the day: it's cooler. But there are only so many warm days left this season, and I want to enjoy them!

I described the South Boulder Creek trail here; it is a plains trail, with tall grass and river basin terrain (willows, cottonwood, flowers).

For a little added mileage, I crossed Highway 93 and ran north to the continuation of this trail up to the Mesa Trail area and the mountains. This adds interest as well, and shade trees, once you get into the pine woods. Here, the trail ascends west through sumac towards the mountains, at about mile 5.5:


Here is the same area facing east. The terrain is arid grasslands, with yucca, flowers, a few trees:


There is also the occasional rattlesnake like this one from a different park. The snake I encountered in this area was actually off-trail in the bushes, and I wouldn't have known it was there if it hadn't given itself away by rattling! I said as much to the snake, and laughed as I ran by.

S21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine

That's probably the grimmest title I will have for a blog post for a while.

I watched the documentary film by that name the other night, and it was very good. The subject matter sounds grim, because it is about the infamous Khmer Rouge prison in Phnom Penh, where 17,000+ prisoners were taken and only twelve were known to have survived. Two survivors appear in the film.

The history is presented in an indirect and gradual way through interviews of former guards and the two survivors, as well as conversations between them. Most of the film is set within with prison itself, where the guards often act out their daily routine, to show us what happened.

To filmmaker Rithy Panh's credit, I would say the way it is filmed is a masterpiece of understatement. The story unfolds gradually, through the faces and voices of the real participants. In spite of the fact that it is simply people talking, the context makes it riveting. The simple conversational format is also a relief to the audience, since the subject matter could be very hard to take if the focus were on the atrocities committed.

One of the survivors, Vann Nath, persistently presses the ex-guards on their history, primarily on their loss of empathy and independent thought. Nath is a very intelligent man who has spent years pondering his fate. It is amazing seeing these two groups of people facing each other. Nath is calm, thoughtful, and morally confident, and the guards are stone-faced, only beginning to show emotion later on. Nath struggles again and again to hear something from the guards that would explain the other-worldly nightmare he endured, to no avail.

Interestingly, a small detail brings the viciously altruist purpose of this prison into clear focus. It was brought home by the fact that guards were so fear-ridden and motivated to get confessions that they coached the prisoners, and knew many of the confessions were fabricated. They were required to get confessions, and that's what they got. Prisoners would write down their concocted stories and implicate absurd numbers of "spies", which was simply a list of any names they could think of.

In the end, this "justice" system and was not even remotely aimed at protecting the Khmer Rouge regime or Cambodian society. It went through the motions of doing so, but little real intelligence seems to have been gathered, and certainly the arrests were mostly pointless. Its primary purpose was to force a confession, then do away with the prisoner. In other words, it was a justice system aimed at destruction and death.

What a perfect expression of the other-ism of altruism! Altruism is not a morality aimed at helping others, but not helping the self. Altruism's benefactor is the non-self, a nil, a negative, which taken to an extreme literally means death. This is why the great collectivist societies of the 20th century were death machines. Not because they deviated tragically from their intended purpose, but because they achieved it.

Although the subject is sobering, I did not find this to be a depressing film, largely due to the keen intelligence and humanity of both Vann Nath and the filmmaker. I highly recommend this film.

Quick Notes #1

Arianna Huffington said it right, in her review of the screening of Michael Moore's new film. Not about the film, which of course I have yet to see, but about our current political state:

In the film, Michael describes capitalism as evil. I disagree. I don't think capitalism is evil. I think what we have right now is not capitalism.

In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. And when a company fails, it fails. It doesn't get bailed out using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. What we have right now is Corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too.

Now if only more writers, including those at HuffPost, got Rand right. As I commented:

The only problem is, the moral foundation that completes the package is Ayn Rand's rational egoism, and pundits are too busy parroting popular misconceptions of her to see what her ideas actually mean.

For example, they don't seem to notice that she clarifies the terms "selfishness" and "altruism", so she doesn't mean "brutish exploitation" and "charity", which are the common meanings. She means, roughly, "living life long-term, rationally and productively" and "one's primary moral purpose is to serve others", respectively. The former definition is the necessary foundation of laissez-faire. Those are radically different meanings and have radically different implications for passing judgment on her philosophy, because many falsely conclude that Rand condemns social cooperation and lauds thoughtless exploitation.

Moore's film opens October 2nd, and it's too bad I don't get a free media screening too, because it's going to hurt to give money to that man. But see it I will.

On another front, we have to fight net neutrality, before our benevolent leaders try to throttle that industry too. This is the mistaken notion that Internet pipe is a collective meeting hall of sorts, which must be protected to the detriment of property rights. Like I commented there:

"Net neutrality" is euphemism for letting companies develop technology, then taking over and telling them what they can do with it, which is totally unjust. The Internet is not some sort of public commons, it should be controlled by whoever makes the financial investment, which should *always* be private companies.

First Snow Of The Season

The first real snow, anyway. The foothills near Denver got a few inches today, so on my way home I decided to take a quick drive up to Evergreen to take some pictures before sunset. At Three Sisters Park I jogged to the top top of a rock called The Brother, which has a nice overlook. I love the soft silence created by the snow.

Frank Rich On Those Pesky Freedom-Lovers

The Left has made hay about Glenn Beck's claim that Obama has a deep-seated hatred of white people, and about the alleged rudeness, racism and ignorance of some tea party protestors. They mix these elements with a bit of Ayn Rand (an automatic black mark among liberals) and a dash of seedy corporate influence, then try to claim this corrupt yokel stew is the cause of political unrest in the country. If only they were smart and pure of heart, Americans would see how great Obama's plans really are!

However, like Beck's claim about Obama, the Left's misguided polemical tactics reveal an underlying weakness that comes from lack of principled understanding of events. This in turn, results in analysis in terms of non-essentials and absurd conspiratorial premises.

Frank Rich says the following:

Beck has notoriously defamed Obama as a "racist," but the race card is just one in his deck. His ideology, if it can be called that, mixes idolatrous Ayn Rand libertarianism with bumper-sticker slogans about "freedom," self-help homilies and lunatic conspiracy theories.

The Founding Fathers would be disappointed to learn that freedom is mere bumper sticker material. He then takes a swipe at tea party protestors:

It's the same crazy-quilt cosmology that could be found in last weekend’s Washington protest, where the marchers variously called Obama a fascist, a communist and a socialist, likening him to Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot. They may not know that some of these libels are mutually exclusive. But what they do know is that they need a scapegoat for what ails them, and there is no one handier than a liberal, all-powerful president (who just happens to be black).

To call statism a "scapegoat" is a lie of such massive proportions that I can barely get my head around it.

Statism is the single cause of every systemic ill in our economy. Government power saps the productive energy of Americans every day, cancelling untold numbers of dreams and dragging us into a quicksand of economic entropy.

Liberals like Michael Moore can point to individual medical patients and bellow that they slipped through the cracks, but what about the ghosts of millions who have died throughout history through the bad ideas he advocates, or the ghosts of innovations that never happened, money that was never made, economic productivity that was denied and personal dreams that were stillborn?

We're not talking about an incremental difference here. If we had a truly free society (laissez-faire capitalism) our economy would be many, many times larger than it is now, and instead of talking about the uninsured, we'd be talking about who can afford housing on the Moon or a vacation spot on Mars. Simply because they cannot point to these things, they are not real? This is what happens when you don't think in principles. They cannot (or do not want to) see that the same freedom that allows them to preach their distortions from the pulpit of newspapers, demands that we be free to produce and keep the proceeds. They can neither see the implications of their bad ideas, nor how those ideas result in unconscionable sacrifice of values.

I posted the following comment, and submitted a modified version as a letter to the editor:

Mr. Rich,

Your own rhetoric is not helping matters. And in terms of political analysis, your approach misses the point.

To focus on one man's missteps, and on some signs and/or actions by protestors, will simply leave you and your loyal readers blindsided by the real sentiments and political power that is developing in this country.

The real issue at hand is the prospect of huge government intervention in our lives, and the fact that many do not want it and are angry about it. They are no longer represented by the likes Obama (of course) or the likes of George Bush, who is a Christian welfare statist who also likes to erode our rights and pass his buddies government favors. That does not leave much for those who seek true limited government and individual rights, and many Americans are struggling to find answers.

The so-called "idolatrous Ayn Rand libertarianism" is an innovative, coherent philosophy that gaining quite a foothold in this country for that reason. Incidentally, Rand did not approve of libertarians, who she regarded as a philosophical mixed bag.

...

P.S. - It is incorrect that Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Pol Pot are opposites; they have far more similarities than differences. They are all thugs who want(ed) to rule individual's lives, and both their goals and their means were vicious and wrong.

Farmer's Market Tomatoes

I bought an assortment of tomatoes and the farmer's market in Boulder and they are a home run in terms of freshness and flavor. They all taste like they're right off the vine, and the little orange ones is intense, packing about twice the flavor of the others. No tasteless, waxy pink orbs here. Get 'em while you can!

Taps at Southern Sun, Boulder

The extensive draft selection at Southern Sun in Boulder CO. Fresh beer is my one intentional exception to my low carb rule ;)


The picture at the top is drawn in chalk on a blackboard, and changes. I count 20 taps with their beers, and one guest beer from Avery, also in Boulder.

I'll write a full review later.

Credit Crisis Links

I'm moving this pre-existing content out of the sidebar into its own post to archive it. They are worth another look, and I wanted to save them because they are good ammo against the prevailing incorrect view that free markets created the credit crisis (realize that this equates to saying that thinking and acting destroys the economy).

A couple of the articles are old, yet foreshadow the disastrous results of loose credit policy. For example, "The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown..." is an article from 2000 aboout the Community Reinvestment Act and shows in detail the destructive nature of altruism in practice. "Fannie Mae Eases Credit..." is from 1999 and shows the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in implementing altruist public policy. We now have proof of the results.

• Why The Mortgage Crisis Happened - Jay Wells
• The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Financial Crisis - George Reisman
• We Are Facing an 'Inflation Holocaust' - Jim Rogers
• The Government Did It - Yaron Brook
• Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - Steven A. Holmes
• The Long Road to Slack Lending Standards - Steven Malanga
• The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities - Howard Husock
• In Times of Crisis, Trust Capitalism - Joseph Calhoun
• Kill the Bailout - Rob Tracinski

Silent Partner

Taken on Too Long Trail, Elk Meadow Open Space, Evergreen CO. On a nice day, no trail is too long :)

Chicory On Big Bluestem Trail

This photo was taken on a drizzly, fall-like day on the Big Bluestem trail south of Boulder, CO.

I had not run here since early Summer, when a trail runner who was finishing his run on the Mesa Trail (and who looked a little bit... distracted) said he had just encountered two juvenile mountain lions and had repelled them with rocks, a mere 10 minutes up the trail I had planned to run. I drove to another trailhead a couple of miles away and ran the South Boulder Creek trail instead.

Unfortunately by avoiding the Mesa Trail area for a while, I also missed a nice field of flowers. Bear in mind that the brown weeds in the picture below are chicory, and then ponder what this must have looked like when they were in bloom:


I'll put that on my checklist for next Summer. Just goes to show, it pays to revisit trails at different times of year. They change constantly, and the wonder of it all is one of the reasons I run where I do.

OOP Applied To Running

This post is probably only for software geeks, but during my run up Bergen Peak the other day, I had time to think (it's a 2+ hour run for me) and it occurred to me how running technique can be similar to interfaces in OOP software design.

An interface is a software entity that lists the functionality of possible classes, but does not implement that functionality. It abstracts out the salient features of objects that you intend to write, and then you write concrete classes that implement the interface by filling in the empty definitions. Each class you write that implements the interface must implement all of its features, but the particular manner in which this is done is up to you.

In the same way, running form possesses certain features, but the particular concrete measurements or implementation of those features, such as how fast your stride is or how much energy you exert, can vary. Although it may be a stretch, one may well be able to define one running form that covers every type of running from sprints to ultramarathons.

For example: when I run, I strive to maintain the same form regardless of the type of running I am doing, and simply vary the parameters to suit the situation. Similar to the Pose Method, I tend to minimize the time my feet are on the ground, and lift my feet up underneath my body, all the while letting my center of gravity fall slightly forward. When running fast, the technique serves to aid the fast tempo of a sprint; when I run mountain trails, it serves to lift my feet to avoid obstacles, and minimize extraneous movement that could expend energy on a long run. The speed and the height may change, but the motion is essentially the same.

Based on my on-hill pondering, I attempted to create a C#.NET interface that would describe running form, and came up with the following:

public interface IRunningForm
{
double Tempo { get; set; }
double ExertionLevel { get; set; }
double FootLiftHeight { get; set; }
double FootTension { get; set; }
double FootTimeOnGround { get; set; }
double FootLiftAngle { get; set; }
double BodyLeanAngle { get; set; }
double ArmSwingForwardLimit { get; set; }
double ArmSwingRearwardLimit { get; set; }
double ArmTension { get; set; }
void LiftFoot();
void SwingArm();
}

Most of the items are properties, and only the last two are methods, i.e. functions that do something. Most of the important adjustments I do during running can be thought of as properties with a certain numeric value, and by tweaking all of those in real time, the motions of running fall right into the desired form. Cool!

The New Republic On Rand

In an article that starts out in a reasonably objective manner, Johnathan Chait at The New Republic attempts to explain Ayn Rand and Objectivism, then to "debunk" them, unfortunately slipping into the usual bromides about both.

I composed some comments, then found that I needed to subscribe to TNR.com to post it. Being a good capitalist, I need to see the profit in things, and I can't justify that particular $29. I sent an LTE instead.

My comments on certain specific themes apply beyond the scope of a particular article and are as follows:

You Earn What You Are Worth - The primary standard for whether a salary is justified is whether it's worth it to the person who is paying, and the person receiving. Secondarily, because on balance people are smart and will generally try to get the best value for their money, this result coincides with other standards of worth such as intelligence, macroeconomic productivity, and so on.

The Role Of Luck - Ayn Rand did not ignore the role of "luck". For example, she was eternally grateful to people like Cecil B. DeMille and Archibald Ogden, an editor and important supporter; people who she might never have met had circumstances been different. However, Rand's ceaseless hard work allowed her to capitalize on the so-called "luck" of meeting people who recognized her talent and greatness and helped her.

The Rand "Cult" - The idea that a group of people sharing a philosophy of reason constitutes a cult is simply absurd, like the idea that accepting the laws of physics would constitute the same thing. One only has to read first-hand accounts of Rand's insistence on rational justification to realize that blind worship was the last thing on earth she was seeking.

Nietzsche - The effect of Nietzsche on Rand's thought is greatly overstated. Although they share a very general spirit of individualism, the actual content of Nietzsche's philosophy is diametrically opposed to Objectivism. Rand's reality- and reason-centered approach and her focus on what is good for the flourishing of the human organism, or eudemonia, places her squarely in the Aristotelian camp.

Rand The Vengeful - The account of Rand's personal life and attitude has been unduly colored by the negative views of her detractors. Those who wronged her have exacerbated the view of her as a vengeful excommunicator. Rand, unlike many people, was unwilling to live with half-truths once clear evidence was brought to light. She was decisive, not spiteful. If decisiveness is a crime, well so be it.

The Failure Of Objectivism - The notion that the Objectivist movement has failed is rather premature, in light of the fact that her books continue to sell quite well, her ideas are moving into academia, the Ayn Rand Institute and Center for Individual Rights are flourishing, and Objectivists are more intellectually and politically active than ever. Classical ideas lay buried under the ponderous weight of medieval mysticism for a thousand years, and yet were revived. I would not confuse the battle with the war.

Lush Forest, Holy Cross Wilderness

This is part of the lush valley I was talking about in the Holy Cross Wilderness. The peaks of this area form a ring, and must trap a lot of moisture, because the vegetation here was unusally thick for Colorado, which tends to be somewhat arid.

Obama's Evasive Speech On Finance

Although he has been called a liar, I think President Obama's preferred polemical method is omission and/or evasion. How else can you fight something that is true, except by means of distortion? His speeches are carefully crafted to contain very little that can be factually repudiated, yet their underlying assumptions are almost always diametrically opposed to reality, or carefully avoid the truth. For example, his speech today to Wall Street [my comments in brackets]:

• "We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses." [excess was not at the heart of the crisis, unless you mean an excess of government intervention and of many politicians' desire for affordable housing]
• "Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them." [the lesson of Lehman is that government intervention is enormously destructive]
• Obama reiterated a number of proposals that the administration has previously made, including a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency [as in: protection racket. The government was "protecting" me with the Fed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the CRA, and look what happened. No thanks]

Like Bush, President Obama has absolutely no clue about economics, and not a care about individual rights. His administration will continue to run like a steamroller over the private sector.

Bergen Peak Trail Run

Bergen Peak is a small mountain in Evergreen, CO that sits at the back of Elk Meadow Open Space. In spite of the fact that the summit is only 2 linear miles from the trailhead, the switchbacks on the trail stretch the actual distance to over 10 miles. I don't usually have time to do this after work, not that many people are on this trail during the week, and honestly it gets a little spooky when I don't see anyone for an hour on wooded trails. I usually run it on a busy day like the weekend.


Total run length is 10.5 miles, starting elevation is 7,600 feet, the top is 9,700 feet, with a total gain of 2,330 including ups/downs. Time today was 1:21 to the top, and 2:34 total. It was a particularly relaxed run with lots of stops for photos and just enjoying the day, since the afternoon was beautiful.

As you can see from the GPS track, the trail passes from meadow to forest and back. A good deal of the trail is soft-surfaced pine woods and is great for running:


The weather was looking a bit shaky early on, and this mountain often gets weather in the afternoon. Blessedly, the rain seemed to be everywhere else but this mountain. This view is from just below the summit looking southeast towards the western and southern parts of Evergreen. A good name for the town, I think:


During the descent around mile 8, the weather cleared up and the sun took the chill out of the air. After a cloudy and slightly breezy summit, it felt really good. My car awaits me at the very back of the brown meadow in the middle.


This shot is from the home stretch in the meadow, around mile 9.5, at the front of the park:


After I finished I went back down some trails to take some pictures. Some flowers are on the way out at this time of year, but there are always others filling in. These flowers were barely an inch around:

Googling Google from Google

When I happened to be near Google offices in Boulder CO, I couldn't resist walking over and using some sort of Google technology, in this case Google Maps from my iPhone:


Hmm... nice doormats, I wonder if I can buy one? I guess not, because it's not in the Google Store.


Although the offices were closed, inside I could see a climbing wall, which may be because Boulder is a climbing town, or more likely because every Google office is required to have one. I was relieved to see that nobody was there on the weekend. After all, there are canyon walls to be scaled, and mountains to be hiked, run and skied!

Too bad the company did not have the backbone to avoid self-censorship in China. While I think trade is the best way to change China for the better, I regard that particular decision as a moral failure.

-- Pics taken and initial blog post drafted on iPhone. The BlogPress app's anchor tags point to my Picasa album however, which I don't want; I want them to open in a new browser window. So, I re-uploaded the pics and tweaked the text.

P.S. - Screen capture on the iPhone is Home Key + Power at the same time.

Mount Of The Holy Cross

As an atheist, this mountain is as close as I'll ever come to worshipping the symbol of the cross ;) This mountain is so well known, and is such a Colorado icon, that it was an extra thrill to crest the top of the ridge on my 2008 hike of this area and see this view right in front of me. Wow! It was like seeing the Eiffel Tower in person.

The Holy Cross Wilderness has some of the most varied terrain of any single area I've been to in Colorado: aspen woods, pine forest, alpine tundra and rocks, high basins with lakes, cliffs along the trail, and a valley in the center of the peaks that is so green you may think you're in the eastern U.S.

Bad Atomic Science

The scientists at the Alamogordo nuke tests must have been surprised when their bomb yeilded 299,792,458 times the power they expected. It was supposed to go off like a cap gun.


see more Fail Blog

HT: Diana Hsieh for mentioning Fail Blog, which I have somehow remained unaware of until now. I guess GTD frees up more time for stuff like that ;)

In Support Of Universal T-Shirt Coverage

Fellow citizens, we are a generous people. In a nation of such generosity, I cannot fathom how we can still permit many Americans to remain un-T-shirted or under-T-shirted, left to fend for themselves, bare-chested and bra-baring, while the more fortunate among us enjoy the benefits of gold-threaded T-shirt packages. We have a moral obligation to provide T-shirts for all citizens, regardless of their means.

I am not the first blogger to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. Therefore, today I am calling for universal T-shirt coverage.

Every American has a right to T-shirts, but private solutions have not been enough to keep Americans covered. T-shirt manufacturers and retailers decide what stores will stock which colors and designs, thus preventing free choice. T-shirts come pre-packaged, so that consumers cannot elect to buy three blue T-shirts, instead of one blue, one green, and one grey. Intense competition has eliminated the small T-shirt screen-printing shops that once dotted small towns around the country, eliminating jobs and forcing people to move or go on welfare. Corporate greed has brought us to this point, and it must be stopped.

Under my plan, all Americans will be required to wear T-shirts. However, we will establish a T-shirt exchange, where they can easily choose from a variety of T-shirt packages, without being forced into packages they did not choose by profit-driven corporate interests. You will be able to buy three blue T-shirts. Yes, you will even be able to buy one green, and two red.

To fund this plan, we will tax providers of gold-plated designer T-shirt packages, which nobody needs anyway, so that Middle America will not have to foot the bill for this crisis caused by the failure of market forces.

I am also proposing that we offer the same T-shirt package enjoyed by government employees and your elected representatives, because fairness demands that all Americans be able to enjoy the benefits currently enjoyed only by the privileged few.

Therefore, I ask you to work in a bipartisan manner for the future of our country, and set aside the small-mind ideologies and selfish needs that have divided us for so long, to pass a universal T-shirt coverage bill for the benefit of all Americans. Americans have a right to coverage, not only for our sake, but also for the sake of future generations.

Thank you.

P.S. - This satire came to mind because of the incessant calls for government involvement in so-called "failing" markets. It is very easy to do a reality check, and step back to look at which markets are successful and which are in trouble, and see which of those are heavily regulated. Start with the market itself: pick one in which there is a variety of products at a wide range of prices, and innovation and change are the rule. Then, pick an industry that provides a limited range of products at unimpressive or high prices, and is plagued by "market crises", and see which is most heavily regulated.

Yes, I thought so.

Now, which modus operandi do you think we should use for markets that are most crucially important for our economy and well-being, such as finance, health care, energy and transportation? Unfortunately, those are the markets we use the wrong approach for: high levels of government intervention and ownership. We will not gain long-term economic stability, growth, and prosperity until free markets are the rule and government interference is stripped away.

For a discussion of what capitalism really means in theory and in practice, see Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

What We Have Not Done - 2009 Edition

Last year on this day (9/11), I wrote about what we have not done to protect ourselves from the many religious fanatics around the world who want to kill Americans (mainly, Islamic militants).

In spite of the tireless efforts of those on the ground in the U.S. armed forces, in my view we have slipped even further on the issue of security.

Our economy has tanked due to the bubble created by an altruistic desire for affordable housing, we have a president who is obsessed with pushing his oppressive medical agenda instead of freeing up Americans to be productive and care for themselves (thus distracting the country from its real problems*), and Islamists are rebounding in Afghanistan, gaining power in Pakistan, and probably conspiring to kill us elsewhere.

All of these things are symptomatic of what we have not done, still, which is to stand up for ourselves.

We still hear tirades against selfishness from our countrymen, and even from the White House. Last time I checked, we all had a self, so aren't we condemning ourselves? The answer is a very obvious "yes"! No sane person should sanction such an attitude. We need to reclaim the self as good, and reject anything that condemns the self. We need to recognize that it is not greed, but certain aberrant means that greed uses to obtain values immorally, which is the enemy. Greed is merely a motive; it does not say anything about actions taken and whether they are wrong or right.

Despite the claims of religionists, who want to pretend that America is some sort of would-be Christian theocracy, this country was founded on individualism. It was the first country in history to recognize that a civilized society requires individuals to have inalienable rights protected by law, both from other citizens and from the government. That is why we have constitutional limitations on government powers.

We need to reclaim that heritage of individualism and join it with the ethics of rational egoism that it lacked, and which has led to its lengthy decay over the history of our nation.

On the bright side, what we have done, we Objectivists and others who argue for individual moral rights and freedom, is to finally put the moral question out there, and answer it with decisive clarity. We reject altruism because it is inappropriate to life itself. It is wrong and is resulting in the destruction of civilization as we know it.

We are already seeing signs that the culture is beginning to wake up and take notice, so my view this year, in spite of dark times, is more sanguine than ever. We may be losing some existential battles in the near term (electing a president who despises true individualism), but the tide of the cultural war has only one possible long-term outcome: a culture of reason, rational self-interest, and capitalism.

I have no idea how long it will take. Classical culture lay buried for a thousand years under the weight of Christian mysticism, only to be rediscovered during the Renaissance. Nonetheless, what many don't realize, because they don't take the time to study the material, is that Ayn Rand's Objectivism spells no less than the beginning of the end for irrationalism in human civilization. It will take time, but with both truth and morality on our side, there is no way we can lose.

* I fully recognize the difficulties that some people are facing with regard to medical issues. However, enslaving the populace and mandating what we can and cannot do is never the answer. Freeing people up so they can think and act, and provide productive solutions, is the answer. It is also the only moral solution, because thinking and acting is our very means of survival, and to prevent it is the antithesis of what human beings need to live and prosper in society.

Chasm Lake Trail Run

Labor Day weekend was an "easy" weekend for me, without what had become the habitual peak run this summer. The weather is turning cooler and requires more gear, plus I needed a break. So, on Sunday I ran one of my favorite mountain trails, starting from the Longs Peak trailhead at Rocky Mountain National Park, and stopping a couple of thousand feet shy of the top, at Chasm Lake. This is the same trail that was too snowy to complete early in the summer, but by August it's dry. Longs Peak is a terrific mountain, and running this trail is always a pleasure.


This is not what I'd call an easy run, but it's certainly easier than a 14er, and due to the gentle incline over most of the trail, it can be run at a relatively relaxed pace over all but a few hundred feet of the trail. The last section below Chasm Lake is steep and slippery with water even in summer, so you will likely need to climb it.

The trailhead lies at 9,400 ft and the high point on this run was around 11,850 ft. Total run length was 8.5 miles. Time to Chasm Lake was 1:20, total run time 2:26. I'd say about 20 minutes of it was brief stops and pictures at the lake, so even though I'm no speed demon (nor do I try to be), I'm happy with my outing.

The one drawback to an afternoon run on this trail is that the east face of Longs Peak is in shadow. Nonetheless, the photo opportunities are plentiful. You can see the fall colors already starting to kick in along the trail, in this view of the peak:


Along the way was the Colorado state flower, the columbine:


At the top of my run, nestled below the east face of Longs Peak is Chasm Lake:


You can often see rock climbers if you scrutinize the slopes carefully. The lake has a blue-green cast to it, over the darker rocks beneath. It's a wonderful, peaceful place, and a great payoff at the top of the run!

Afterwards I headed to Estes Park, which I hadn't visited in a couple of years. It's a busy mountain town with a lot of character and beauty, as well as a ton of stuff to do. In addition to the adjacent Rocky Mountain National Park and associated outdoor areas, there are quite a few nice shops and restaurants, and a pleasant river walk along the Big Thompson River that flows through town.

This is a shot from the Birch home ruins on top of Birch Knoll in the middle of town, at the end of perfect day. That's Longs Peak in the background, in the heart of Rocky Mountain National Park:

Obama's Health Care Speech To Congress

President Obama delivered health care pep talk in the form of a speech to Congress Wednesday. He's certainly not fooling any Objectivists with the rhetoric for which he is praised by some. Here are some bad points, with my comments in square brackets.

• All Americans would be required by law to have health insurance under his proposal [nobody has a moral right to force people to buy insurance, nor are the costs borne by others a justification]
• He reiterated his support for a "public option," [an unfair plan that will hurt private industry and rob me of income to fund a plan against my individual rights]
• He said his plan would make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or drop people who are sick [nobody has a moral right to force insurers to provide a product]
• High-risk insurance pools to cover those with pre-existing conditions [if it does not exist without government action, it should remain undone]
• Help pay for expanding coverage by taxing insurance companies that offer expensive, so-called gold-plated insurance plans [thank you for robbing us]
• "Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise" [guilty as charged!! Go, principles!!]
• "Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics" [I don't know, I find his plans pretty scary]
• "And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned" [the confusion is over what you are saying, and the charges are called "debate"]
• "I will not waste time,” he said, “with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it." [so if someone plans to do something bad, we should just let it happen?]

Oppressive government: 1; Freedom, and actual solutions: 0.

He did say one thing that was true, when he said that health care is

above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.

That is exactly right; health care is a moral issue, but the President is on the morally wrong side.

For example, the President advocates taking from, and legally controlling, the rich and powerful to allegedly "benefit" the needy. However, improvement can never come from sacrifice. Sacrifice means to give up a greater value for the sake of a lesser value. It is something you would never do in the simplest grocery store transaction (you want to get more for your money, not less), yet President Obama wants to reshape the medical industry in America according to this principle. By sacrificing our intelligent and talented doctors by mandating their actions and compensation by law, for the sake of those who lack something: coverage, money, health, pull, etc. By sacrificing profitable insurance companies to those who do not or cannot buy insurance. By sacrificing everyone's freedom for the sake of a few people who cannot, or do not, act responsibly by purchasing medical insurance. Or by accepting and worsening the current restrictions on free markets that are, in fact, the true source of our ills, and the lifting of which could help us.

Sacrifice is to be contrasted with compromise, which means trading something of lesser value for something of equal or greater value. Hypothetically, an alternative and morally acceptable way of dealing with the uninsured situation would be to willingly give money (as opposed to being taxed) to a foundation that helps those without insurance, because you value life, you empathize with those whose lives are difficult, and you want to help. You part with money, but let's assume you gain the greater value of defending your principles, helping others, and because you achieve your values you are happy. Everyone wins with compromise, which necessarily requires the consent of all parties involved.

Life involves compromise, but life, by definition, cannot involve sacrifice. You can only sacrifice for so long until you run out of loot, and victims. Sacrifice involves destruction, and is anti-self and anti-life, which is why we find ourselves in a self-reinforcing downward spiral in this country. We say we want improvement, yet we employ a sacrificial strategy that destroys value and the free, uncoerced individual choice that drives it. Many condemn greed and selfishness, yet it is we -- our selves -- who desire the best life can offer, is it not? If we condemn selfishness, we condemn our own lives.

We should reject Obama's plan because it is morally wrong and because it is inherently destructive and cannot work. The only moral and practical plan for any industry is to release it from bondage.

In a very timely fashion, these exact same issues are detailed in sweeping scope in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. As for Obama's moral code, it is called altruism, which you can read about here.

Kinnikinnick, Longs Peak Ranger Station

Trees, Cherry Creek State Park

This field was just off a road in Cherry Creek State Park on the south side of Denver. I've always liked this type of terrain for its subtle beauty, visual textures, flowing landscape, and unexpected objects of interest, such as flora and fauna.

The park itself surrounds Cherry Creek reservoir and is composed of fields, light forest and wetlands. It has an extensive system of trails and paved bike paths, and is connected with the wider Denver metro trail system. The reservoir is a major stopping site for waterfowl, and you will likely see many of the same species you would see on the west coast.

Mating Grasshoppers

Normally I wouldn't post adult content, but this photo came out too good to pass up :) The lighting and surroundings almost make it look staged, or like a diorama, but it was simply shot with the sun high in the sky:


I was not able to identify them, but they were big, some as thick as my thumb. The photo was taken during a run on North Table Mountain in Golden, CO.

My Verizon Experience

I had to give Verizon the bad news Saturday: I'm going with AT&T & Apple's iPhone.

My decision to go with the iPhone coincided with the expiration of my Verizon contract and my recognition of the crushing superiority of Apple's device compared to other brands (a subject for another post).

In general, I've been happy with Verizon, and I've been a customer for many years. I'm not particularly demanding, and relatively understanding when errors are made, but also Verizon's actual cell service and network has been excellent. I can't remember the last time I've had a dropped call, and coverage is pretty good for Colorado, considering there's a lot of wilderness.

But they don't have the iPhone.

Of course, when I called to cancel, there were the expected attempts to keep me as a customer, but it was too late; their mojo had no effect on me. I was hoping for a more graceful exit, but if I had not been vigilant during my termination, they would have incorrectly charged me for an extra month, because the first person I spoke to said I would need to pay through the end of the billing period (incorrect), which she said was Nov. 7th (also incorrect). I called on Sep. 5th, so the end of my billing period would have been September 7th.

I was suspicious about the billing cycle thing, so I checked that essential tool of capitalism, the contract; in this case the sacred Customer Agreement.

Sure enough, I could cancel effective immediately:

If you terminate your service as of the end of your minimum term, you won't be responsible for any remaining part of your monthly billing cycle. Otherwise, all terminations by you during a monthly billing cycle become effective on the last day of that billing cycle.

The first sentence is the one that applies to me, because "end of your minimum term" means the end of your 2-year contract. I could cancel any time.

When I called back, the second customer service rep put me on hold to read the Customer Agreement(!), and got it wrong again by quoting me the second sentence above (dropping the critical word "Otherwise"), which did not apply to me. I had to recite her company's contract to her verbatim in order to obtain her adherence to her own company's agreement. Not very impressive.

I certainly hope the people I spoke to were new employees, because I simply don't believe that someone whose job consists entirely of handling terminations could honestly not know the terms of Verizon's Customer Agreement. Only those two employees know if their actions were innocent errors.

That said, the overall pros and cons of life with Verizon were:

PROS

• Very good network reliability
• Very good network coverage
• Phone selection was pretty good, until Apple came into the picture. It seems like the various providers are roughly on par as far as this goes.
• In spite of the fumble on the last day, I'd give them fairly high marks for customer service. My few issues were always resolved to my satisfaction

CONS

• As far as I'm concerned, pricing is high for all cell phone providers, and I always felt like Verizon was just doing enough to be average in this regard.
• Obviously, either their customer service training or their ethics needs work.

Regarding AT&T and the iPhone, I've already had a couple of dropped calls during the first month. The coverage also does not seem as good, and I've compared the two phones side by side. But... the iPhone has boosted my productivity immensely over the Motorola Razr V3. In fact, I wrote the bulk of this post on it, although the typing is definitely cramped and I'm not that good yet. But for a phone?? The interface is superb, and the mapping alone is worth the price. It's sooooo easy to find your way around, find businesses and call them with a few clicks. It's nuts. An amazing device.

Colored Rocks At Colorado Monument

I saw these mineral-laden rocks along the trail while running at Colorado National Monument last week. It's about an hour and half east of Moab, UT and has some of the same red sandstone, including towers and arches (I could not see them on this run). The colors are subtle, but along these trails you will see red, yellow, pink, white and even green rocks. It's a struggle to keep my eyes on the trail sometimes :) If you run out here, bring plenty of water!

The Addams Family Analytical Method

I found this post on Firedoglake, a site apparently dedicated to the ancient art of human sacrifice, practiced today in the form of trying to get laws passed to prevent U.S. citizens from thinking and acting on those thoughts, and from using their earthly possessions as they see fit.

In other words, they are for public health care legislation.

I don't know if you've seen the 1993 comedy Addams Family Values, but it was a very entertaining movie based on the TV series, with really enjoyable performances by a great cast. One of the reasons I enjoyed it in particular -- believe it or not -- was intellectual. The movie was a perfect illustration of the nature of standards of value, and how they impact our choices. Much of the comedy in the movie is based on separating the Addams' absurd standards of value from the judgements they result in.

The Addams family perversely (and very comically) holds to a value system that is the polar opposite of most people: pretty flowers are ugly, happiness is unbearable, beautiful people are frightening, ugly people are beautiful, etc. It's all in good fun.

What is not in good fun is that in real life, many people hold standards of value that are the polar opposite of what is in their actual interest. Such people tend to do crazy things like put Obama and Bush stickers on their cars, beg for more regulation of the economy, and vote totalitarians into public office who will later begin a world war.

This brings me to the Firedoglake post. Sometimes someone actually says something that starkly reveals this topsy-turvy value system. The poster watertiger on Firedoglake is discussing two instances of Republican insensitivity to town hall audience members who speak of health care problems, starting with:

Buoyed by the hisses, catcalls and boos from the audience, Jenkins instead sneered that the woman should just suck it up and "buy" health insurance with some undefined tax credit, instead of expecting other people to "buy" it for her.?!

Oh, the horror! Free exchange to mutual benefit! The other incident is described thus:

That's right - the Man o' Steele turned his back on a woman whose mother had died because she couldn't afford health insurance. That is the Republican ethos in a nutshell. Bootstrap your way into better coverage or die trying. Ayn Rand would be so very, very proud.?!

concluding:

I already know the answer to this question, but I have to ask it anyway: WHAT THE [expletive deleted] IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!

Actually, I don't think most liberals (or conservatives) do know the answer to that question. And although I can think of more effective ways to engage audience members than those Republicans did, and it is not smart to ignore the fact that The Left will turn it against you, Jenkins' point is 100% valid, and mere needs are not a justification of the type of slavery that public health care represents.

The point I want to make, however, is about the writer's yelling of the words "WHAT" and "WRONG", which triggered an Addams Family moment for me. Although the usage is rhetorical, the "WHAT" could just as well be taken as the poster's actual confession of ignorance of the issue's underlying principles, and the "WRONG" is of course the result of their assessment of the issue by the wrong moral standard. The Republicans' viewpoints are not objectively wrong, they are simply viewed as wrong because the moral yardstick being used is the idea that sacrificing those who are productive to those who are not productive is right. Instead of embracing wealth production, the writer believes it should be inhibited or destroyed for the sake of the have-nots; instead of letting people be free to enjoy life and help each other, we should be put on an altar and sacrificed to those others, begging the question of why they may benefit from the producer's money, but the producer may not. The Republicans are "wrong" because they dare to reject the morality of sacrifice and its politics of government-forced dependence (at least for this particular moment). What's actually wrong is the standard of judgment. Explicitly abstracting out this standard of value from the assessment it causes allows it to be seen for what it is: nihilistic destruction of the value for the sake of value.

Unfortunately for America, such writers are far more strident than Morticia Addams when she wistfully declared:

Morticia: [to Gomez] I'm just like any modern woman trying to have it all. Loving husband, a family. It's just, I wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces and join their hellish crusade.

For a non-Gothic discussion of these inverted standards of value, see Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and other works by Ayn Rand and Objectivists at the Ayn Rand Institute, as well as bloggers on the OBloggers feed on the right side of this page.

Colorado Monument Trail Run

NOTE: Either I published this too soon, or Blogger is publishing stuff I have not released yet :( In any case, this post is still a draft, and rather than breaking the link on the OBloggers feed, I will leave it up and finish it later.

This was a run I did at Colorado National Monument outside Grand Junction, CO. The terrain is desert red standstone and rocky, pine-covered mesas.

Praying Mantis At Starbucks

This ferocious little thing was outside Starbucks trying not to get stepped on. If I were another insect, I wouldn't want to be grabbed with those arms! This also reminds me of how great the art work was in A Bug's Life.