Honoring “The Chosin Few” in the Korean War from 27 November 1950 on into December 1950. The battle of Chosin Reservoir. It was intensely brutal combat in temperatures sometimes down to minus-35 degrees in the mountains. A frozen Hell.

Honored warriors there were from the US Marines, the US Army, the Republic of Korea (the “ROKs,” South Korea), and the British Royal Marine Commandos. But don’t forget, the ill-equipped (and tyrannically led) communist Red Chinese troops fought bravely against these UN forces, sometimes fighting down to the very last man. UN forces retreated but Chinese forces were shattered; no one won.

War sucks. We as human animals seem to worship it, romanticize it, love it, and continue it. I confess: combat service has defined my own life; I will never be the same. But war is at its root insane, inhumane and immoral. Will we ever get over it? Can we as a species survive while acting this way?

The last seven minutes of the show will include a segment featuring Michael Strong and Magatte Wade, discussing how Free Cities will reduce poverty and create jobs, hope, and prosperity in the developing world.

The work to develop such cities is being spearheaded by the Free Cities Institute, but on the program Stossel actually refers to it as the “Free Cities Project.” So I’m creating this blog post to help point interested parties — as well as Google — to the correct website to find more information.

To learn more about these important initiatives, please visit the site for the Free Cities project (or, more formally, the Free Cities Institute).

UPDATE – The video of their interview is now available online.

This part is particularly relevant to our conversations today about the dangers of nuclear power:

To put it in perspective, in 2008 Next Big Future calculated how many people are killed per terawatt-hour of electricity generated. On average, there are 161 fatalities related to energy generation from coal for each one of those terawatt-hours, which comprise a quarter of the energy we use on Earth. 36 people die per TWh of oil energy, which is 40% of our energy use. Nuclear power has a deaths per TWh rate of only 0.04 while producing 6% of our energy, which makes it about ten times safer than solar power once you take into account how many people fall off roofs while installing it, and twice as safe as hydro power.

Nuclear power: Twice as safe as hydro, 10x safer than solar, and 1000x as safe as coal or oil.

Among energy idealists, solar power often gets credit for being safe — “We’re just capturing what the sun already gives us!” — but just imagine the environmental catastrophes if those incredibly toxic solar panels had washed out to sea during the tsunami in Japan.

It’s a question I’ve had for many years, and the answers I’ve gotten from various Objectivist thinkers have varied considerably. It seems like a pretty important question, particularly for a philosophy that aspires to be internally consistent:

Ayn Rand taught that we have no unchosen obligations. She also taught that we must respect the rights of others. How does one resolve the apparent contradiction? Is it because rights constitute only a negative obligation? Or because we choose to live in society? Or something else?

I hope Dr. Peikoff answers it. I would be interested to know how he views the matter, viewed through Ayn Rand’s eyes. Does anyone know if Dr. Peikoff has addressed this question already, in OPAR or elsewhere?

I’m also interested to hear how other Objectivists view the matter. Your thoughts?

I notice he’s no longer working under the “Fireball” title, which I think is a good call. There was something gimmicky about that, and distracting about the associated visuals.

Thanks to Marsh for the link.

What do you think of his presentations?

An entire nation was freed from Soviet occupation, without a single person being killed. (Think about that for a moment… Why haven’t you heard about this before?)

See the trailer here. And more information about the movie (including reviews) is available from Amazon.

I originally learned about the movie from my friend Stephen Browne, when he wrote about it on his blog.

Commentary on the movie (via Amazon.com) from filmmakers James Tusty and Maureen Castle Tusty:

Most people don’t think about singing when they think about revolutions. But in Estonia song was the weapon of choice when, between 1987 and 1991, Estonians sought to free themselves from decades of Soviet occupation. During those years, hundreds of thousands gathered in fields to sing forbidden patriotic songs and to rally for independence. The Singing Revolution documents how the Estonian people regained their freedom and helped topple the Soviet Union along the way.

We learned of the Singing Revolution while teaching filmmaking at an Estonian university in 1999. We not only were amazed by the story itself, we were amazed that we knew virtually nothing about it. Unarmed people facing down tanks; 300,000 people singing forbidden songs under the eyes of Soviet authorities (even the Soviets couldn’t figure out how to arrest people for simply singing); incredibly clever parliamentary and street theater maneuvers that vexed Moscow at every turn (including working within the Soviet system to officially make the hammer and sickle an illegal symbol in Estonia, implemented while still occupied by the Soviet Union!).

We called all our friends to ask if they had ever heard of the Singing Revolution. Virtually no one had. And even those who had heard the phrase knew close to nothing about what had actually happened.

We looked at each other as husband and wife (which we are as well as filmmakers) and said, “This story has to be told.” And if not us, who? If not now, when? And so we embarked on a four year journey trying to understand what was behind the miracle of this bloodless revolution.

This is not a history film. It is not even an Estonian film. It is an inspirational film. Although Estonia’s occupation began under the most murderous and oppressive means by both Soviets and Nazis, not a single person was killed during this 4-year revolution, and the strategies used to achieve this were just brilliant. David vanquished Goliath without even the use of a slingshot, and yet no one knows about it. Ironically, had people been killed during this revolution, it probably would have received press attention. We think the fact that no one was killed kept the story out of the international news.

From 1940-1946…in just six short years…Estonia lost more than 20% of its population through successive brutal occupations by Stalin, then Hitler, and then Stalin again. They suffered a persistent attempt at genocide…by direct executions at first, by population dilution second, and then by an attempt to wipe out all symbols of the nation of Estonia.

And yet, the people survived…and when their moment came, they seized it. They seized it and won a victory for all of humankind.

If this were fiction, you wouldn’t believe it. But we have the footage to prove it. The Singing Revolution took place in the late 1980s, and it was documented. There is no argument.

Creating “The Singing Revolution” changed our lives. We learned a lot about what humans are capable of enduring, and what they are capable of achieving, under the most horrible of circumstances.

We hope you consider watching “The Singing Revolution”. It might change your mind about how to change the world, and it might open your eyes to much greater and higher possibilities than you now think are possible. And as dark as some of the above history is, your faith in humankind will be uplifted and energized after viewing this film.

What essential difference does it make whether corporations “are” people, when they are composed of people? Seeking insight into the basis of your position. I’m probably neutral on the subject itself but wary of people “sticking it” to corporations as though that were not “sticking it” to people who own the corporation.

He replied: “My main critique is that corporations are pursuing essentially non-human goals (monetary gain) with super human ability. This leads to a dynamic that skews interactions in favor of the corporations. Also: people should not be able to own people.”

And I answered:

I have grave reservations myself about large corporations, largely around the fact that some of them act too much like governments. I haven’t really sorted out why they do so, but it may be a simple question of the accumulation of power, and what that does to the human soul — and nothing to do with corporate status, per se.

As I recall, the corporate entity as such is largely an artifact of the screwed up tax code. If it weren’t for the goofy tax advantages, most corporations would be companies of one stripe or another. You can certainly get protection from lawsuits and bankruptcy without becoming a corporation. That’s what limited liability companies (LLCs) are about.

In any case, you say that corporations are pursuing “non-human” goals, and cite monetary gain as an example. It seems to me that pursuing monetary gain is one of the most human of goals. How many humans do you know who don’t do this? It’s a small fraction. Are these the only humans deserving of personhood status?… See More

I think I realize what you are saying, of course: That by focusing on money, corporations are ignoring may of the human considerations like compassion and honor, etc. But in this respect, I don’t see a group of humans who call themselves a corporation as particularly different than any other groups of humans. Humans are always looking for the advantage, especially financially, regardless of what they call their group.

I’m not sure what you mean by “people should not be able to own people.” Are you saying that if a corporation has the rights of a person, then it’s like one person (shareholders) owning another (the corporation)? This strikes me as somewhat beside the point, which seems to be something like: Does a group of people (whether they call themselves a corporation or a co-op or a family) ~deserve~ the same political rights that a single individual deserves?

I don’t know the answer to that question, but it’s not clear to me that simply because the group calls themselves a corporation, the answer should be no, whereas for other groups it should be yes.

I don’t mean to create too much cognitive mess, here. It’s just not clear to me at all that saying “corporations aren’t people” adds much conceptual clarity to the moral questions involved. Instead, it seems to vilify people who turn their company into a corporation … which is usually done for tax benefits. And since most people would rather pay less taxes, this doesn’t seem like a good criteria for personhood, either.

I look forward to your thoughts.

And I look forward to yours as well….