How to Make Bacon in the Oven

I make bacon on a regular basis, and I always make it in the oven in a glass pan. That's the easiest, tastiest, and cleanest way I've found to to make a large batch of perfect bacon.

First, lay the strips neatly in a large glass pan.


The larger the pan the better! If the slices don't all fit, I will overlap them, one exactly on top of another, then adjust them when I flip them. They shrink while cooking, so you'll end up with more room.

Cook at 400F for 20 minutes -- perhaps a bit less if you pre-heated the oven.


Flip over each slice, and re-adjust the placement as needed.


Cook for another 10 minutes. You might need a few more minutes after that -- it depends on how crispy you like your bacon.


Save the grease for later cooking. Once the pan is cool, let the dog(s) lick the glass pan. (If you are missing the dog, adopt one!)

You can cook bacon at a lower temperature with more time too, but I don't have the timing worked out for that. You can also use cookie sheets lined with tin foil in the oven too. That makes it harder for the doggies to enjoy, however. And the bacon doesn't seem to cook quite as nicely as it does in a glass pan. I've seen some people recommend using a rack in a pan. I've never tried that, but it seems like more trouble.

Read more...

Link-O-Rama

• Foxhunting Via Helmet Cam: In high school, I foxhunted with my mother on my fabulous horse Paint, and I loved it! (The usual disclaimer: The fox is chased, not killed. A single fox is far, far smarter than a pack of 50 hounds!) Here's a view of a small hunt from a helmet camera.
  
• Kelly Sildaru: Wanted: If Marxism were true, I'd be perfectly able to do all these awesome tricks if only I had Kelly's skis for a season or two! (The outtakes shown during the credits are painful!)
  
• Helicopter Parents Hover In The Workplace: Really? Really?!? Sweet Jesus, my brain just exploded reading that story.
  
• Repulsive progressive hypocrisy: I disagree with the politics of the author, but he's right to say that most "progressives" and "conservatives" today are not loyal to any principles, but only to their party and its leaders. That's a dangerous trend, and part of why I'm not enthused about the prospect of a Republican ousting Obama from the White House.
  
• Santorum's Greatest Hits: Why Rick Santorum is "more collectivist and authoritarian than many on the Left."
  

Read more...

Candidates: Hire A Campaign Finance Director First

The Campaign Doctor newsletter offers marketing tip for campaigns. I subscribe because their advice is often useful for thinking about how to best promote political ideas. A recent issue offered some disturbingly useful advice: a candidate should hire a campaign finance manager first, before anyone else. Yes, that's just how onerous our campaign finance laws are.

How to determine who and what to hire for your campaign
By Chris Ingram

Most campaigns have limited resources. In today's trying economy, scarce dollars requires even more prioritizing of expenditures than ever before.

Many candidates start their campaign with the idea that they will hire a pollster, a press secretary, a campaign manager, and so on - until they realize those guys (and gals) cost money. In most areas, anyone running for county commission, town council, school board, or the like ends up being their own manager, press secretary - I've even seen a few try to be their own pollster!

My advice to candidates is always this: the first person any campaign should hire is not a strategist, manager, or pollster - it's a good accountant who will file their campaign finance reports. I also advise them not to rely on a friends or relatives who are accountants who will do it for free.

Allow your accountant friend or family member to serve as your campaign treasurer who signs the reports if you want, but you should pay a professional to do the grunt work and keep you out of trouble. And since you're a paying client, they will return your phone calls, which free labor doesn't always do.

The person in this role could be called lots of things, but I would call them your campaign finance compliance officer. Ideally they have familiarity with campaign finance law as well as accounting. This person is the most invaluable person on your campaign team and worth every penny. Filing bad campaign finance reports can be embarrassing, costly, distracting, and can result in civil fines and even criminal prosecution.

So when it comes to tracking donations, expenditures, campaign finance law, and disclosure reports, don't skimp, pay up and hire a good campaign finance compliance officer.

Chris Ingram is the president and founder of 411 Communications a corporate and political communications firm, and publisher of Irreverent View. Ingram is a frequent pundit on Fox News and CNN, and has written opinion columns for the Washington Times, UPI, and National Review online.

Thanks to campaign finance laws, a candidate dare not move without a hired accountant to track and report contributions. That's the predictable effect of demanding "transparency" (read: onerous reports) and "accountability" (read: hefty fines) in elections.

(If you want to sign up for the newsletter, you can do so here.)

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

The Objectivist Roundup is a weekly blog carnival for Objectivists. Contributors must be Objectivists, but posts on any topic are welcome.

The Playful Spirit hosted this week's Objectivist Roundup. Go take a look!

You can submit your blog article to the next edition of The Objectivist Roundup using this submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found here. If you're an Objectivist blogger, you can get weekly reminders to submit to the carnival by subscribing to OBloggers @ OList.com.

Also, here are the ten most recent additions to the question queue for the Philosophy in Action Webcast. Please vote for the questions that you're most interested in hearing me answer!


Join us for the live webcast at www.PhilosophyInAaction.com on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the meantime, check out the show's extensive archives by topic, peruse the upcoming question queue, and submit your own questions.

Read more...

Rights Are Inalienable But Forfeitable

In my recent Philosophy in Action Webcast discussion of the death penalty, I mentioned Craig Biddle's discussion of the fact that rights are inalienable but forfeitable. As promised, here's footnote 46 of his excellent essay, Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society

... If rights were somehow inherent in man by virtue of his being man, then we could never punish people who violate rights--because using retaliatory force against them would violate the "rights" that they "inherently" have and that they thus always retain by virtue of being human. Because Rand's theory is based on and derived from the observable requirements of man's life, it is not afflicted with contradictions regarding those requirements. On Rand's theory, rights are inalienable, in that others cannot take away or nullify one's rights; but they are also forfeitable, in that one can relinquish one's own rights by violating the rights of others. If and to the extent that a person violates the rights of others, he relinquishes his own rights and may be punished accordingly. His choice to violate rights places him outside the purpose of the principle and thus the scope of its protection. Again, one cannot claim the protection of a principle that one repudiates in action.

If rights were inherent in human nature, based purely on DNA or species-membership, then the advocates of "personhood for zygotes" would be right: the fertilized egg would have a right to life. However, on an objective theory of rights, rights cannot apply until the fetus is biologically separated from the woman. Only then does the fetus -- then a baby -- enter the social context necessary for rights. For further details, see Ari Armstrong's and my recently-published essay, "The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.

Read more...

Preview: Philosophy in Action Webcast

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on low passion for career, patriotism as a virtue, artificial intelligence, boycotting chick-fil-a, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

• What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast


• Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins


• When: Sunday, 12 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET


• Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live

Here are the questions that I'll answer this week:

• Question 1: Low Passion for Career: What should I do if I have a good job but not burning professional ambition? I have a good job that pays well. I perform my job well to the best of my ability. But I don't feel about it the same way that Howard Roark felt about the field of architecture in The Fountainhead or that Dagny felt about the railroad business in Atlas Shrugged. I don't hate my job – I do enjoy the work and the people I work with. But it's not my burning passion. On a scale of 1-to-10, my paying job (and the overall field) is a 7, but I also have various non-paying outside hobbies and activities that are more of a 8 or 9 for me. Should I try to cultivate a strong passion for my paying job? Or look for a different line of work? Or ramp up my pursuit of various hobbies and outside activities that give my greater satisfaction on the side?


• Question 2: Patriotism as a Virtue: Is patriotism a virtue? Is patriotism towards America a virtue? Should a person "love America" – or is that just jingoistic nationalism?


• Question 3: Artificial Intelligence: Is artificial intelligence possible? Can consciousness be created on a purely logical system such as a computer? Might consciousness and even free will somehow "emerge" out of a purely logical system? Also, what do you think of the "Turing Test" as a test of intelligence?


• Question 4: Boycotting Chick-Fil-A: Should people boycott Chick-Fil-A for its hostility to gays? The fast food chain Chick-Fil-A is well-known for its promotion of Christian values. In recent years, the company has actively worked against gay marriage, in alliance with other organizations promoting the imposition of biblical commands by law. More generally, the company is hostile to same-sex couples. Given that Chick-Fil-A uses money from customers and shareholders to promote theocracy and other rights-violations, should people condemn and boycott the chain?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions."

If you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
  
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

Be sure to connect with us on social media too.

You can listen to full episodes or just selected questions from any past episode in the Webcast Archive. Also, don't forget to submit and vote on the questions that you'd most like me to answer from the ongoing Question Queue.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

Read more...

SnowCon 2012

I'm pleased to announce SnowCon 2012 -- a long weekend of snow sports, informal lectures, and discussion in the snowy Colorado Rockies! SnowCon will be held from Thursday, March 15th to Sunday, March 18th entirely in Frisco, Colorado. It's sponsored by Front Range Objectivism, and it costs only $25.

During the day, we'll be skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing, hot tubbing, chatting, and relaxing. In the evenings, we'll have short lectures and discussions after dinner at a condo I've rented in Frisco. The topics and speakers will be announced in late February.

To attend SnowCon, you must register by Sunday, March 11th using this form.

You can pay the $25 for SnowCon instantly via PayPal to llc@dianahsieh.com. If you would prefer to send a check or money order, please make it out to "Diana Hsieh" and write "SnowCon" in the memo field. Then mail it to "Diana Hsieh; P.O. Box 851; Sedalia, CO 80135." (SnowCon attendees are responsible for all of their arrangements and expenses, including as lodging, transportation, meals, and equipment rentals.)

Everyone attending SnowCon 2012 should subscribe to the SnowCon e-mail list for SnowCon-related announcements.

Would you like to give a short lecture or lead a discussion at SnowCon? If so, submit a proposal by February 15th!

SnowCon 2012 will be very informal, with people participating as much or as little as they like. Skiers and snowboarders will meet up on the slopes of Breckenridge and/or Keystone around 9:00 am on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Paul Hsieh will be snowshoeing during the day, and attendees are welcome to join him. On Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings, the lectures and discussions will likely be held from 7 to 9 pm.

For more information, visit SnowCon 2012!

Read more...

Video: Overcoming Perfectionism

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed overcoming perfectionism. The question was:

What is the problem with and solution to perfectionism? Lately, I've realized that I might have a problem with "perfectionism" – meaning that I hold myself to unrealistically high standards in some areas of my life. For example, I feel like I should be much more productive, to the point of being unrealistic about what I can do in a day. What's the basic error of such perfectionism? And what can I do to overcome it?

My answer, in brief:

For a person to seek perfection, based on rational standards that take account of his particular context, is often good. Perfectionism, however, means doing so based on out-of-context or unrealistic standards of perfection. A person with perfectionist tendencies needs to identify them, then think and act consistently based on standards appropriate to his purpose – whether seeking perfection, good enough, or merely adequate.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends via social media, forums, and e-mail! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode, and our my YouTube channel. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

Read more...

The Comments

For many moons now, I've neglected the NoodleFood comments. However, I've seen the error of my ways! Over the past few weeks, I've been making an effort to remedy that, simply by replying more often. I plan to continue doing the same.

You can...

• view all recent comments
  
• subscribe to the comment rss feed
  
• subscribe to the comments via e-mail

Notably, if you register with Disqus and post with that account, you can edit your comments -- and thereby fix any formatting problems, typos, or other minor errors.

Read more...

100th Lucidicus Kit Awarded!

I'm rather late in reposting this January 17th announcement from Jared Rhodes of The Lucidicus Project... but this milestone is fantastic, and I wanted to publicly applaud Jared's work to promote free markets among our future doctors!

I'm proud to announce that today The Lucidicus Project hit a nice milestone: we've awarded our 100th kit! The 100th kit went to Alexander G., a third-year medical student at Boston University.

You can read about Alexander and all the other recipients here.

The Lucidicus Project is a student outreach program that I started in 2005. We give out a "self-defense kit" of books and essays to medical students who are interested in learning about the moral and economic case for capitalism in medicine.

I think it's great that there is a popular movement brewing against Obamacare, but I believe it is absolutely critical to have doctors on board, too. We're cultivating that by reaching out to tomorrow's healthcare leaders--namely, medical students--while they are young and still open to new ideas.

Our next goal is to reach recipient number 200 a lot faster. I'd like to thank everyone who has donated or supported the project in the past in any way. And for anyone interested in doing so now, just go to Support The Center. Or, if you can't help out financially, then just spreading the word online and offline is extremely helpful, too. You never know who is listening!

Cheers,

Jared Rhoads
Center for Objective Health Policy
http://ohpcenter.org

Congratulations, Jared!

Read more...

The Meaning of Tattoo Locations

As a humorous follow-up to my January 2011 webcast discussion of tattoos:



(I wish that I knew the source, but alas, the image was just some random thing spread around Facebook.)

Read more...

NoodleCast #116: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

On Sunday, 5 February 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
  
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you'll join the live webcast, because that's more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 5 February 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:07:25

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (16.4 MB)
  
• Download the Standard MP3 File (15.4 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
  
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 5 February 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

I've been busy making plans for SnowCon 2012! E-mail me if you'd like to share accommodations.

Question 1: Overcoming Perfectionism (3:30)

What is the problem with and solution to perfectionism? Lately, I've realized that I might have a problem with "perfectionism" – meaning that I hold myself to unrealistically high standards in some areas of my life. For example, I feel like I should be much more productive, to the point of being unrealistic about what I can do in a day. What's the basic error of such perfectionism? And what can I do to overcome it?

My Answer, In Brief: For a person to seek perfection, based on rational standards that take account of his particular context, is often good. Perfectionism, however, means doing so based on out-of-context or unrealistic standards of perfection. A person with perfectionist tendencies needs to identify them, then think and act consistently based on standards appropriate to his purpose – whether seeking perfection, good enough, or merely adequate.

Links:

• Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics by Tara Smith, pg 236 to 243

Question 2: False But Beneficial Ideas (35:13)

Should you just keep quiet when a friend's bad philosophy works for him? If someone you know pretty well believes in something mystical, such as "The Law of Attraction" (from "The Secret"), or "The Power of Prayer," and this has helped them move their outlook on life toward a benevolent universe premise, and they are more productive and happier, is it better to leave them with their faulty metaphysics and avoid the topic, or should you try to show them the error? What do you say when they start trying to convince you of the truth of their view?

My Answer, In Brief: People in the grip of worse ideas are sometimes helped by less-bad ideas. If you're both willing, you can discuss even better ideas with them. However, doing so is not obligatory.

Question 3: Possessiveness in Romance (46:46)

Is possessiveness wrong in a romantic relationship? I have a drawback: I'm extremely possessive. I expect that the person who loves and understands me – he being the only one who understands me – should be mine and only mine. I can accept other women in his life and contain my jealousy on the condition that he reveals to me every single of them who was, is, or will be. But he should love me the most. And I expect that he should stay with me till the end and that we spend the last days together reflecting on the past and life. Am I wrong in expecting all that from my partner? If so, what can I do to change?

My Answer, In Brief: To be possessive means treating your partner as an object to be controlled, rather than an independent individual who wants to share your life. For this depth of problem, therapy is the best option.

Links:

• NoodleFood: How to Find a Good Therapist by Diana Hsieh

Question 4: Term Limits for Politicians (54:58)

Are term limits necessary and proper for good government? Many people – usually conservatives – claim that term limits are essential to liberty. They say that the Founders never intended to have career politicians, and they blame the growth of government on those career politicians and their pork projects. Do you support term limits? Are they an important restraint on the growth of government?

My Answer, In Brief: Term limits might be part of the government of a free society, but they're not a panacea.

Links:

• Wikipedia: Term Limits

Rapid Fire Questions (1:00:48)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Should President Obama be defeated, at any cost?


• What's wrong with going with your gut feelings?

Conclusion (1:06:20)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com


• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we're doing, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!

$5.00 USD - One Time$10.00 USD - One Time$20.00 USD - One Time$50.00 USD - One Time$100.00 USD - One Time

$10.00 USD - Monthly$20.00 USD - Monthly$30.00 USD - Monthly$50.00 USD - Monthly$100.00 USD - Monthly

If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

Read more...

Activism Recap

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine):

• 30 January 2012: Rhoads: Fact-Checking Romney on Individual Mandate by Paul Hsieh
  
• 31 January 2012: Side By Side: ObamaCare vs. RomneyCare by Paul Hsieh
  
• 01 February 2012: Quick Links: Ethics, Algorithms, Managed Care by Paul Hsieh
  
• 02 February 2012: Coulter And Her Critics by Paul Hsieh
  
• 03 February 2012: Armstrong: Our Dead American Medical Association by Paul Hsieh
  
• 04 February 2012: Wolf: Obamacare Is Worth Getting Angry About by Paul Hsieh

This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:

• 30 January 2012: The Impossibility of Re-Creating Religions by Diana Hsieh
  
• 02 February 2012: The Gay Lifestyle by Diana Hsieh

This week on Mother of Exiles:

• 01 February 2012: Weekly Quote by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
  
• 02 February 2012: The Defense Of Marriage Act: End unconstitutional tyranny upon individual rights and the rights of immigrants. by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
  
• 03 February 2012: Snow Day! by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela

This week on the blog of Modern Paleo:

• 30 January 2012: winter fruit, beets, and fennel salad by Julie
  
• 31 January 2012: perfect roast chicken by Julie
  
• 01 February 2012: cuban pork roast + mojo and chimichurri by Julie
  
• 02 February 2012: Snowboard Girl, Powered by Bacon by Diana Hsieh
  
• 03 February 2012: Question of the Week: Alcohol by Diana Hsieh
  
• 03 February 2012: The Paleo Rodeo #098 by Diana Hsieh
  
• 04 February 2012: Objectivist Links by Diana Hsieh
  
• 04 February 2012: Video: What's Wrong with Being Pragmatic? by Diana Hsieh

Read more...

Open Thread #330

For anyone wishing to ask a question, make a observation, or share a link with other NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. As always, please refrain from posting inappropriate comments such as personal attacks, pornographic material, copyrighted material, and commercial solicitations.

NoodleFood's Open Threads feature creative commons photographs from Flickr that I find interesting. I hope that you enjoy them!

Read more...

SuperSlow Update: The Second Sheet

As you might recall, I quit doing CrossFit for SuperSlow in May for the reasons detailed in this post. (SuperSlow means resistance training to failure of major muscle groups using slow movements once per week.) In October, I posted my first progress report based on 16 sessions of training. Now I'm past due for the second progress report... so here it is!

I completed this 16-session sheet in early January. (Click to enlarge.)



Here's a summary of my progress on various movements, starting from Session 16 from Sheet 1 to Session 32 on Sheet 2. All the machines are Nautilus, except the the lower back, the torso rotation, and the funky ab cruncher hold machines, which are MedX. My trainer added a few new machines, so now most movements are done every other session. (In fact, only Leg Press and Lower Back are done every session.) Also, the order is switched around with every sheet, and that makes a huge difference in my ability to progress on a given machine.

Every week:

• LB: Lower Back: 150 to 160 lbs. I'm happy with my steady progress. I like being able to increase by 2 lb increments on this machine. (The Nautilus machines increment by 5 lbs only.)
  
  
• LP: Leg Press: 225 to 260 lbs. The leg press is definitely my focus with every workout. During this sheet, I had to really focus on staying calm, as I was tending to panic as I reached failure. As a result, I made some speedy progress in the middle of the sheet. Overall, I'm pleased with my progress, but mostly, I'm eager to get to 300 lbs!

Every other week:

• Hip AB: Hip Abduction: 75 to 90 lbs. I made good progress in the beginning, but I leveled out in the last few sessions.
  
  
• Hip AD: Hip Adduction: 105 to 115 lbs. Okay progress.
  
  
• Lower Back (see above)
  
  
• Leg Press (see above)
  
  
• Row: Row: 50 to 65 lbs. I alternate between pulling and a 2 minute static hold. I've made progress, but I still need to work on my form.
  
  
• CP: Chest Press: 55 to 65 lbs. I was stalled on my first sheet due to my seat position being too high. My trainer corrected that, so I've made some progress on this sheet. I'm pleased about that, but I want to do more.
  
  
• PD: Lat Pull-Down: Steady at 115 lbs. This movement was near the end of my workout on this sheet, and I just couldn't make any progress whatsoever.
  
  
• Ab C: Ab Crunch: Steady at 15 lbs. This movement is not only last, but also makes me feel like I can't breathe. Fun!

Every other week:

• Rot T: Rotate Torso: 38 to 48 lbs. Every other week. My form is better, and I'm pleased with my progress.
  
  
• New MXCP: (Funky MedX Ab Cruncher Hold): 65 to 75 lbs: Okay progress.
  
  
• Lower Back (see above)
  
  
• Leg Press (see above)
  
  
• New: Bicep: 30 lbs to 40 lbs: Some progress, but I want more!
  
  
• New: Tricep: 65 to 80 lbs: Good progress!
  
  
• LE/LC: Leg Extension: Steady at 50 lbs. This movement was at the very end of my workout, and I struggled with it. The contraction hurts, just due to the nerve endings in the muscle, and I've been working on staying calm despite that. (LC is a 90-second Leg Curl of progressive intensity against a stable frame.)

I've learned a few things in these 16 sessions of training.

• Sleep matters to my performance... hugely! I need to have a few good nights of sleep under my belt for a good workout. (Sleep is hugely important to my adrenal function too.)
  
• The order of machines has a huge impact on whether I make progress or not on any given machine. If I have a strong performance on the leg press, I might not be able to make any progress on any machine after that.
  
• I can often go for a rep or two beyond what my trainer supposes. I love doing that. Once, I was telling my trainer that I thought I might have been able to do another rep on the leg press, and as I got out of the machine, I fell to the ground because I was literally unable to hold up my own weight. That was pretty awesome.
  
• At the end of my first sheet, I was having some problems with being ridiculously exhausted after my workout. I've solved that problem in two ways. First, I run any errands before my workout, so that I'm not attempting to haul around 60 pounds of meat from Costco just after the workout. Second, I take 15 to 20 minutes to sit down in the waiting area after my workout. I drink my coconut water, and I chill out. That really helps.

A number of people have told me that they'd like to do SuperSlow, but they've not been able to find a gym in their area. That's definitely a problem, and I'm lucky to have such an awesome SuperSlow gym just 30 minutes from home. (For me, that's nearby!) If that's your situation, then I'd recommend trying to find a personal trainer willing to do the SuperSlow / Body by Science method. Sure, it's possible to work on your own, but I wouldn't have made nearly the progress that I have without a trainer to push me to my absolute limit.

Also, if you decide to try my SuperSlow gym in south Denver, please tell them that I referred you!

Read more...

Video: Feigning Indifference to Attract a Man

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed feigning indifference to attract a man. The question was:

Should I act uninterested in a man to attract him? One common theme in romance advice is that a woman should act aloof and unattainable in order to attract a man or to get him to commit to a relationship. Is that dishonest? Is it counterproductive?

My answer, in brief:

It's wrong to make people into conquests in romance. If you do, the kind of person that you'll attract is not the kind of person that you'll want to be with. And you'll not be the kind of person that a good person will want to be with.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends via social media, forums, and e-mail! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode, and our my YouTube channel. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

Read more...

Link-O-Rama

• Allergy Death at School: When Do Morals Override Policy?: To be rule-bound is bad enough, but to be rule-bound to the point of allowing a child to die when you could easily prevent it... WOW.
  
• Politician's potentially incriminating conversation is live-tweeted by a reporter on a train: Newsflash: If you talk loudly on your cell in a public place, you're not having a private conversation!
  
• No Pet For You: Many rescue groups are making it nearly impossible for good people to adopt pets. All of my cats and dogs have been rescued, and I find that infuriating. Even a mediocre pet owner is better than living (or dying) in a shelter.
  
• Why Go to College At All?: If you want to learn, college is the last place you should go. A lot of learning isn't happening on college campuses." Too true. For more, see my webcast discussions of the value of a college degree and the value of a PhD.

Read more...

Dealing with Inept and Shirking Co-Workers

In my January 8th Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered the following question on the ethics doing the work of inept (and shirking) co-workers:

Is it moral to help inept co-workers? On my team at work, we have only a very few people who use their time productively. We all get paid for 8 hours of "work", every day, but most of my team would rather talk on their phone, hide from management, and underperform at their job. We also belong to a union, which makes it harder for management to fire the ones who don't work despite being informed about the situation. I often find myself in the position of helping these people, or going in behind them and fixing their work. I am beginning to feel taken advantage of, and am getting fed up with most of my co-workers. Is it moral to continue helping people who do not take their own work seriously?

You can find my the audio of my answer in the archive of Philosophy in Action.

Here, I want to offer the answer given by another. Rachel Garrett posted the following remarks to OProducers, and I'm reposting them with her permission. Her advice is excellent -- and her way of framing the issue in terms of your obligation to your employer definitely helped my own analysis.

Without further ado, here's Rachel's answer to the question:

If the extra help to co-workers is getting in the way of fulfilling your own job responsibilities, you would need to devise strategies to cut down on the amount of assistance you render. But since you didn't say that, I will assume that's not the case.

It's frustrating to be in a situation where your productive energy is getting drained by people who don't perform their own job responsibilities. However, I would be cautious of how you've framed the question. You've given yourself an alternative: either continue helping these lazy co-workers and be taken advantage of; or refuse to help them (telling yourself it's the moral thing to do).

The important thing to focus on is: What is my contractual obligation to my employer? What is my job? If you are getting paid for eight hours of productive work, and you finish your own assigned task in six, then the right thing to do is to spend the remaining two hours as productively as possible on your employer's behalf. This may include teaching others how to do their job better, finishing tasks that others have left undone, and fixing others' mistakes.

You're not a manager of this environment, so the work atmosphere is not your responsibility. It's your employer's problem that they are getting crap for productivity from this part of their workforce. Going "on strike" and withdrawing your help, in order to force others to do their own work, would not be appropriate. Managers are the ones who should be monitoring and evaluating employees' performance, and motivating them to do better. That job's not yours to do. If management is not doing their job, there is nothing you can do that will fill that gap.

The best course of action largely depends on how good of a relationship you have with your own manager, how you're evaluated, and how you envision your future at this company. If this is just a job, it's perfectly fine to tell yourself, "I'm just here for the paycheck," and stop caring about your co-workers. If the company is not connected to your long-term goals, then your co-workers' goofing off shouldn't mean anything more to you than a grouchy grocery clerk -- something unfortunate that inconveniences you for a while, but doesn't affect you much. If you can't let it go, do everything within your power to find a new job before you become embittered and lose perspective.

If you have a decent working relationship with your manager, I would suggest logging all your extra work and fixes, for a week or two. Ask your manager if you can add a phrase to your job responsibilities ("Train other departmental personnel on X and Y procedures...") that would help this count toward your upward development. Or perhaps you could find a job responsibility that you enjoy, and that would fill up your time and make you unavailable to pick up others' slack. (Whatever you do, don't sound complainy. You have a right to complain and you deserve sympathy from rational people who value their work, but complaining is almost certainly a bad strategy to get what you want from your manager.)

There are also some smaller things you can change or do...

• Make people work for your help. "Sure, Amanda! I'd LOVE to help you get that month-end report fixed! I tell you what, I've gotten this question a lot, so how about I walk you through it and you take notes so you can write up the procedure. Then next month, we can use that as reference."
  
• It's wrong for your co-workers to spend time on non-work activities when there is work to be done. However, most people do want to do things the right way and feel good about what they got accomplished. Your co-workers have the same human need for productive work that you do. They may be mismanaged and socially pressured, or they may have a genuine rotten attitude. There's no way to reach inside and see. So give them the benefit of the doubt.
  
• When you think about the situation, don't use judgmental labels like "lazy"; use factual words like "unproductive".
  
• Reach out to your company's Quality department for Six Sigma training. Identify common snags and mistakes in your department's processes. Run a process improvement project(s) to fix them.
  
• Increase your skill/knowledge level of Microsoft Office or whatever other software/systems you're using. Learn how to automate and error-check to help avoid mistakes.
  
• Read the book Crucial Conversations -- I think it would be a great help in having some of the conversations you may need to have with your manager and/or co-workers.

I hope some of this helps.

Indeed it does! Thank you, Rachel. for that excellent advice!

Read more...

How To Celebrate Randsday in Three Easy Steps

How to Celebrate Randsday in Three Easy Steps:

Step 1: Buy up all the delicious uncured bacon at the grocery store.
Step 2: Take it home.
Step 3: Go wild. (This may take a few days.)

Happily, Steps 1 and 2 eased the pain of seven (!!) hours of errands today! (Due to the impending blizzard, I had to mush all my errands into one day.) Plus, the bacon was on sale! Score!

Read more...

Video: What's Wrong with Being Pragmatic?

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed being pragmatic. The question was:

What's wrong with being pragmatic? My dictionary defines being pragmatic as "dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations." What's wrong with that, if anything? Is that the same as "pragmatism"?

My answer, in brief:

Pragmatism is a philosophic view that rejects thinking long-range and on-principle in favor of short-term expediency. However, many people just use the term to mean "practical," and others are honestly confused by all the bad theories and principles rampant in the culture.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends via social media, forums, and e-mail! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode, and our my YouTube channel. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

The Objectivist Roundup is a weekly blog carnival for Objectivists. Contributors must be Objectivists, but posts on any topic are welcome.

Rational Jenn hosted this week's Objectivist Roundup. Go take a look!

You can submit your blog article to the next edition of The Objectivist Roundup using this submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found here. If you're an Objectivist blogger, you can get weekly reminders to submit to the carnival by subscribing to OBloggers @ OList.com.

Also, here are the ten most recent additions to the question queue for the Philosophy in Action Webcast. Please vote for the questions that you're most interested in hearing me answer!


Join us for the live webcast at www.PhilosophyInAaction.com on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the meantime, check out the show's extensive archives by topic, peruse the upcoming question queue, and submit your own questions.

Read more...

The Conspiracies of Ron Paul

A few weeks ago, an unknown Ron Paul's supporter (or supporters) created a stir with a video attacking John Huntsman. Reuters reports:

Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman and members of his family expressed outrage on Friday at an advertisement targeted at his adopted daughters by a group supporting rival Ron Paul.

An online ad authored by "NHLiberty4Paul" shows footage of Huntsman with daughters Gracie, who was adopted from China, and Asha, adopted from India, when they were infants.

"American values. Or Chinese," the ad asks to a soundtrack of Chinese music. It calls Huntsman "the Manchurian Candidate" and ends with an image of Huntsman dressed as China's former communist leader Mao Zedong, and the words "Vote Ron Paul."

Here's the video, and I definitely recommend watching it:



So what is Ron Paul's response?

Paul, a Texas congressman, disavowed the ad during an interview on Friday on CNN, but said he could not control the actions of all his supporters.

"I couldn't even hear it, haven't looked at it, but people do that, and they do it in all campaigns," Paul said.

(Update: Apparently, Ron Paul's campaign did attempt to sue to discover the author of the video, but they were rebuffed by the courts.)

Unfortunately, Ron Paul has a long history of tolerating these and other varieties of racist, homophobic, and otherwise disreputable supporters. He distances himself in tepid terms, and refuses to condemn them in anything remotely like the strong language that they deserve. That's why he's got problem after problem with downright frightening supporters.

Ron Paul's 2008 campaign had such problems in spades, particularly for refusing reject donations from neo-Nazis. In this 2010 campaign, Ron Paul's campaign welcomed the endorsement of a Christian dominionist pastor in Iowa who -- consistent with his overall theology -- advocates the death penalty (!!!) for homosexuality. (Please go read the whole story, because it's quite remarkable.) The announcement on Ron Paul's web site welcoming this fothermucker's endorsement was deleted, but as far as I can tell, Ron Paul never repudiated the endorsement.

Moreover, Ron Paul has never adequately explained or repudiated the viciously racist and homophobic comments in his newsletters.

How should the lunatic fringe be handled in a campaign? Consider the reaction of Bob Barr's campaign to a racist endorsement when he ran for president in 2008 on the Libertarian Party ticket:

The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.

Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!

I'm not a fan of Bob Barr, but *pow* *pow* *pow* -- that's how it's done!

Instead of doing that -- or anything like it -- Ron Paul tolerates dangerous idiots, only setting them at arm's length when exposed by the media. This pattern of actions reveals something amiss with Ron Paul's character and judgment, I fear. He's not a racist, I don't think: he's said and done too much too clearly against that. So is he just willing to tolerate and pander to dangerous nonsense in the hope of a few more votes? I don't think that explains the pattern, not when he sticks to his guns on economics.

I suspect that a major cause of these problems is that he's got a serious but mostly hidden penchant for conspiracy theories. This fascinating NY Times article explores that in some detail. For example:

In a 1990 C-Span appearance, taped between Congressional stints, Paul was asked by a caller to comment on the "treasonous, Marxist, alcoholic dictators that pull the strings in our country." Rather than roll his eyes, Paul responded, "there's pretty good evidence that those who are involved in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations usually end up in positions of power. And I believe this is true."

Paul then went on to stress the negligible differences between various "Rockefeller Trilateralists." The notion that these three specific groups -- the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family -- run the world has been at the center of far-right conspiracy theorizing for a long time, promoted especially by the extremist John Birch Society, whose 50th anniversary gala dinner Paul keynoted in 2008.

Wow, just wow. By all means, go watch the video for yourself. He just smooth talks right in and out of the conspiracies.

Judged by the standards of a rational epistemology, conspiracy-theorism is nearly at the bottom of the barrel. The mind of the conspiracy theorist is in complete disarray, utterly unable to evaluate evidence or stick to facts. It's engaging in a constant process of invention, and then confusing those inventions with facts.

For that to be the basic psycho-epistemology of the US President... well, that would be frightening.

Read more...