Archive for category Tech
Tea Party Summary
[Welcome HBLers! Thanks to Anu Seppala at ARI for the submission.]
We at the Ohio Objectivist Society had a great time attending both the Canton and Cleveland tea parties. There were at least a thousand at the first, and at least twice that at the second. We brought about 60 copies of our booklet of reprinted essays, The Portable Objectivist, and 30 copies of Atlas Shrugged to hand out to interested individuals. I also made a few signs: “Ayn Rand Was Right” — “Atlas Will Shrug”; “Who is John Galt” — “Read Atlas Shrugged”; “Free the Market” — “$” [big green dollar sign].
First up was the Canton Tea Party. It had been raining all morning, but finally stopped when we arrived in Canton. It was still cold, and threatened rain all day. As soon as we got there, Matt, our executive director, started mingling in the crowd - he has a real knack for that. The rest of us walked around the perimeter, and it wasn’t long before we got a request from a local radio station - Ron Ponder’s show on WHBC 1480 AM - for a live interview. We rushed to get Matt, and he was live on the radio within minutes. He covered who we are, why we were there, what we stood for, how we were different from the rest, etc. Here is a photo of us holding up signs during the interview:
Matt went on mingling in the crowd, while we found a strategic high-traffic location, waiting for people to come to us. And they did! At least one in five people were drawn to the “Atlas Will Shrug”/”Ayn Rand Was Right” sign, and told us their stories about when they first read the book. Many were reading it now or had just finished it, but there were a few who read it over 40 or 50 years ago, and an even smaller minority who had read it several times, as well as the rest of Rand’s work. Several others took photos of our signs, or pointed and smiled.
The response to our signs was quite remarkable, and there were even multiple people who said, “nobody is going to get the reference.”
After the Canton event, we grabbed a bite to eat - steaks all ’round at the Longhorn Steakhouse, and mine was bacon-wrapped! We got to Cleveland early and took shelter at a local bar to talk about the Canton event and what to do differently for the Cleveland one. We decided that seeking people out was a better strategy, particularly because the crowd was expected to be larger.
At the Cleveland event, there were several other people with signs referencing Rand - several “Who is John Galt?”, some “Atlas Will Shrug”, and shirts with “John Galt 2012″ and “I am John Galt”. We made several laps around the crowd, and sought out such people to give them business cards and booklets, and let them know about our future meetups and other events. It was a real surprise to meet a self-professed Objectivist couple at the event; hopefully we’ll see them at a future meetup.
My favorite moment at the event was when a guy, who had brought his young son, said that he met his wife over Atlas Shrugged - they were both reading it at the same time. It was his favorite book, and he hoped his son could read it when he gets older. Thad immediately pulled out a copy from his bag, and the kid’s eyes lit up. We tried to limit our distribution to people who said they had heard about the book and wanted to read it. Everyone who got a copy was excited and couldn’t wait to read it.
In all, we handed out over 20 copies of Atlas Shrugged, over 40 copies of our booklet, and dozens of business cards. We got on a couple radio shows, one local TV news segment, and were interviewed by a small local newspaper, all to spread our name. And it’s working - the emails are already pouring in, with people interested in future meetups, book reviews, etc.
For Objectivists interested in attending future protests - such as the Independence Day Tea Party - the one thing we recommend is to bring a nice clear sign that mentions Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand. If you build it, they will come.
Here is a slideshow of photos taken by the OOS at the events:
Medical Journal Drums Up Support for Govt Health IT Initiatives
Posted by Brian in Healthcare, News, Regulation, Tech on March 31st, 2009
The latest edition of the New England Journal of Medicine includes two articles on the purported limited use of computers and other information technology in healthcare. Both were issued from Boston, in the backdrop of the Massachusetts government-funded healthcare system.
The first study, conducted by researchers at the Institute for Health Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital, and funded by the federal government’s Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT, surveyed almost 3,000 hospitals, and found that “less than 2 percent use comprehensive electronic health records (EHRs).” The study authors go on to assert that this number is “abysmally low”, and that the government must step in to help transition healthcare providers to electronic records. By appealing to the federal government for funding, this paper forces everyone to ponder a non-issue. Rather than allow healthcare providers to freely decide whether or not to go digital, by individually weighing the risks and benefits of such a move, these researchers - via government force - would like to make the decision for them. This effort is likely in light of the hindered state healthcare system. “If only everyone would go digital,” they might say, “then healthcare could be affordable!”
The second article is an appeal by doctors at the Children’s Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for the creation of a software platform for the sharing of patient data across numerous applications - including “order entry systems, medication reconciliation systems, patient communication systems, etc.” This, they say, would streamline healthcare, ultimately benefiting everyone. Given the truly abysmal failure of another government-sponsored software platform - Diebold voting machines - I cringe at the thought of patient records being freely passed around. This is particularly true given that patients under a government-mandated healthcare system such as that in Massachusetts would have no choice in the matter. To live in such a community, one would have to sign away his personal privacy, leaving the security of his medical information to the whims of bureaucrats.
As has happened in banking and medicine, so goes with healthcare - responsibility for one’s choice of services is being handed over to the government - via FDIC insurance in the first case, and FDA approval in the second.
Public-Private Patient Records Exchange
Posted by Brian in Healthcare, News, Regulation, Tech on March 23rd, 2009
We now have the beginnings of the National Health Information Network (NHIN) with the creation of a public-private electronic records information exchange between the Social Security Administration and the regional health information organization MedVirginia. From ComputerWorld’s article:
The open-source software, called NHIN Connect Gateway and developed by Harris with help from Sun and other vendors, is being combined with MedVirginia’s repository to provide for secure information exchanges, according to the SSA. Eventually, the gateway software will be used for exchanges between the SSA, the DOD, the VA, the Indian Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, and health care providers that sign up with MedVirginia.
Now, as Ponzi schemes go, Social Security beats them all. Each and every year, it dwarfs Bernard Madoff’s fraud by ten-fold, but whereas Madoff’s clientele voluntarily invested their money, Americans have no choice in the matter. So one could argue that among his corrupt peers, Madoff wasn’t such a bad guy.
With the combined promises of Social Security and Medicare exceeding $53 trillion - nearly four times the GDP - it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suggest an ulterior motive to the NHIN. Social Security cannot survive as is, so it may be that they will try to cut it down as much as possible, weeding out as many beneficiaries as they can, by whatever altruistic rationalizations they can concoct.
Note that I am not saying whether such a move would be good or bad - Social Security should not exist at all, so no ethical judgments can be made about its individual actions, except to say that they are all bad moves. If they were to announce an irrevocable plan for shutting down Social Security, then I could say that is a good thing, insofar as it actually could not be revoked.




