Biography of Ayn Rand

    Ayn Rand (birth name: Alisa Rosenbaum) born in Saint Petersburg in 1905, grew up comfortably with her well-to-do family. Her father, a self-sufficient chemist and owner of a successful pharmacy, could comfortably provide for his family until the Russian Revolution began in 1917. Soon after the Bolshevik takeover, his assets were proclaimed part of the Soviet state, which can be argued as the root to Rand's bitterness toward collectivism. In spite of hardship, Rand graduated from the University of Petrograd after studying history and philosophy, and quickly emigrated in 1925 to the United States under the guise of visiting relatives.
    Ayn Rand for Beginners by Andrew Bernstein, romantically depicts Rand as a brilliant young, struggling novelist and screenplay writer whose raw talent was dutifully noted by a book publisher, thus setting her free from the shackles which bound her from spreading the word of her personal philosophy.  This notion somewhat ignores the fact that Rand moved to Hollywood because of her obsession with becoming famous.  Rand showed great interest in film and movie stars from a young age, however her predominant interest pertained to writing screenplays and novels.
    Although her early writings were not necessarily bereft of her predominant ideology of man's ability to achieve greatness, her first novel We the Living was the first to genuinely highlight her anti-collectivist ideology, or more specifically her distaste for "Soviet tyranny."  Rand is often pegged as a capitalist paragon whose opinion of communism and its implementation is legitimized by her status as a primary source for information on early Soviet rule, however it is often disregarded that Rand was a child during the revolution.  It is also often ignored that Rand only experienced Soviet rule during arguably its most tumultuous time, which is to say that no country is spared in facing severe and sometimes catastrophic growing pains in the immediate years after their revolution. Rand only experienced this difficult time for Soviet Russia during her teenage years, which not only exemplifies her bias (which by definition is directly contradictory to "objectivity"), but raises important questions about her as an historical primary source.  If one is looking for an historical reference to the life of a bourgeois Russian teen after the Russian Revolution, Rand certainly fits the bill, however her consideration as a sociopolitical and philosophical savant due to her brief life during Soviet rule is a blatant farce.

                                    - Stephanie Centeno

The Benefits of Vegetarianism
    It is nearly inescapable, in our present society, to turn on the television and successfully watch half an hour without hearing of a new and amazing diet. Witness the latest fad that will magically give you the body of your dreams along with astounding health benefits! It is clear that people are concerned about their health, yet with so many different influences and money making companies trying to press their latest “diets” it seems people have lost touch with what exactly the human body needs to be healthy. Being healthy doesn’t mean losing 25 pounds in a week. It means discovering and returning to the diet that the human body has naturally developed to consume.
    Studies increasingly show that, despite our culture’s immense consumption of meat products, the human body is not naturally built to digest large quantities of meat. In fact, although humans are omnivorous and have the ability to consume both meat and plants, the body is much better suited to accommodate a vegetarian diet rather than the largely carnivorous diet that our society generally accepts. Although sometimes considered a “new age” or even unusual practice, vegetarianism is continually growing and evidence shows that the health benefits, although far from astounding, do have a solid impact on both way of life and physical fitness.
    When a careful look is taken at the differences between carnivores and humans, our unnecessarily large consumption of meat becomes obvious. Every year in the United States alone, over 15 percent of the world’s animal population, about 10 billion animals, are processed (grown and killed) for the sole purpose of providing meat to Americans. The human body is not naturally built to process such large amounts of meat. For example, the human digestive tract is approximately 12 times the height of the individual, whereas the digestive tract in a carnivore is only three times its height. A shorter digestive tract allows rapidly decaying meat to pass quickly out of the body. Because we have a longer digestive tract, the average American man has about 5 pounds of undigested red meat in his bowls by the time he is 40 years old.
    Vegetarianism is not only healthier for the individual in providing key vitamins and nutrients that are not found in the average diet, as well as reducing heart diseases and certain types of cancer,  but it is also economically and socially more responsible. There are many reasons why a person may choose to become a vegetarian, including religious or social reasons, personal reasons, or health precautions.  Recent surveys suggest that the number of people who choose to become vegetarian or vegan is on the rise, due to an increased awareness about the health benefits and general acceptance that such copious amounts of meat consumption is ethically unjust.
    Whether a personal choice, or as a health precaution, vegetarianism is on the rise.  The push for more people to become vegetarian and take a careful look at what the human body actually needs is a healthier and more conscious effort to change our diets and way of life.

  -McKenzie Linden

Democracy: An Epistemological Trap
    Our episteme, the knowledge that serves as the foundation for all of our knowledge, ultimately extends from the larger, socially constructed basis.  Prejudice, religion, values and even science: all ultimately extend from perceived truths that have become part of the larger concept of “truth”.  I state this point to lead to the question I want to ask today: does the democratic political process serve to limit our own knowledge?  The answer, simply, is yes.
    A Democratic process of any sort relies on the foundation of simple sets of decisions.  These decisions serve to categorize and ultimately reflect the established episteme and are constructed to produce specific outcomes and likelyhoods.  By making these specific decisions (deciding on a ballot measure or choosing a candidate) we are expecting a specific outcome (like lowering taxes or continuing social security).  These outcomes, though, are merely an epistemological trap.  The electorate (the democratic decision makers in any society), ultimately make specific decisions for specific results.  By choosing candidate (a) an electorate expects an outcome different from choosing candidate (b).  What voting individuals ultimately fail to grasp is that neither candidate has sure outcomes and an ability to verify the truth behind “rhetoric”.
    This notion of “rhetoric” is where the trap truly occurs. Ultimately, any policy (or set of policies, i.e. a candidate) is founded on the “rhetoric” that must be produced to insure the expected decision must be made.  The words and images that are associated with policies and candidates are ultimately developed to produce an ideal decision for those voting.  Someone in the electorate makes decision a.) to hopefully receive outcome b.). Because the “rhetoric” much match and conform established episteme, policy is limited to the words used to gain the necessary decision from the electorate.  The words limit the understanding of an actual outcome. By doing this, the ability to make decisions outside of established episteme is impossible.  With this said the participants in a Democracy find themselves in an epistemological trap, since they have to rely on established epistemes to make and form any decision.

 -Mark Brinton