Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Video: Overcoming Perfectionism

By Diana Hsieh

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.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

The Comments

By Diana Hsieh

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...

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.

100th Lucidicus Kit Awarded!

By Diana Hsieh

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!

Monday, February 6, 2012

The Meaning of Tattoo Locations

By Diana Hsieh

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.)

NoodleCast #116: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

By Diana Hsieh

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

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!

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.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Activism Recap

By Diana Hsieh

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

Open Thread #330

By Diana Hsieh

20111206-juice-kodac400 (11)

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!

Saturday, February 4, 2012

SuperSlow Update: The Second Sheet

By Diana Hsieh

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!

Friday, February 3, 2012

Video: Feigning Indifference to Attract a Man

By Diana Hsieh

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.

Link-O-Rama

By Diana Hsieh

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.

Dealing with Inept and Shirking Co-Workers

By Diana Hsieh

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!

Thursday, February 2, 2012

How To Celebrate Randsday in Three Easy Steps

By Diana Hsieh

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!

Video: What's Wrong with Being Pragmatic?

By Diana Hsieh

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.

Objectivist Roundup

By Diana Hsieh

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.

The Conspiracies of Ron Paul

By Diana Hsieh

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.

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Hsieh TOS Post: "The Grey: A Great Reminder of Crucial Truths"

By Paul Hsieh

The 1/30/2012 blog for The Objective Standard has published my short post, "The Grey: A Great Reminder of Crucial Truths".

Here is the opening:

Could you survive deep in the Alaskan wilderness and make your way out with only the resources from a crashed airplane?

That’s the stark challenge faced by the seven protagonists of the movie The Grey, starring Liam Neeson. An airplane carrying Alaskan oil field workers crashes during a storm, and they must battle harsh winter conditions and a pack of aggressive wolves while attempting to find their way back to civilization. In addition to spectacular cinematography and spellbinding action scenes, the movie demonstrates surprising philosophical depth in delivering its theme: "What does it really mean to fight for one’s life?"

The movie also dramatizes three related principles that are easy to forget during everyday life but that are made vividly clear in the context of the movie...

(Read the full text of "The Grey: A Great Reminder of Crucial Truths".)

Many thanks to Craig Biddle and Ari Armstrong for their help editing the piece. And don't forget to check out the other fine commentary at the TOS blog!

Preview: Philosophy in Action Webcast

By Diana Hsieh

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on overcoming perfectionism, false but beneficial ideas, possessiveness in romance, term limits for politicians, 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, 5 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: Overcoming Perfectionism: 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?

Question 2: False But Beneficial Ideas: 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?

Question 3: Possessiveness in Romance: 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?

Question 4: Term Limits for Politicians: 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?

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!

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

December 2011 OActivist Compilation

By Tammy

Here is a list of items published by members of OActivists in December 2011:

Op-Eds

1. Ari Armstrong, "Tebowmania isn't just for Christians", DenverPost, December 19, 2011.

2. Paul Hsieh, M.D., "Would a President Gingrich Ban The Birth Control Pill", PJMedia, December 22, 2011.

3. Paul Hsieh, M.D., "Who Will Your Doctor Work For Under ObamaCare?", TownHall, December 30, 2011.

Letters to the Editors

1. Amesh A. Adalja, M.D., "Illicit drugs and personal freedom", Pittsburgh Post Gazette, December 1, 2011.

2. Amesh A. Adalja, M.D., "Change for liquor, mail", Butler Eagle, December 5, 2011.

3. Amesh A. Adalja, M.D., "End Socialist Schemes", Butler Eagle, December 13, 2011.

4. Amesh A. Adalja, M.D., "Capital's Conductors", Pittsburgh Tribune Review, December 14, 2011.

5. Amesh A. Adalja, M.D., "Stance is meaningless" Butler Eagle, December 28, 2011.

6. Amesh A. Adalja, M.D., "Health Intrusion", Pittsburgh Post Gazette, December 31, 2011.

Articles

1. Charlotte Cushman, "Count Your Capitalistic Blessings", Liberty's Torch, December 2, 2011.

2. Linn & Ari Armstrong, "'Twas the night before they occupied the North Pole", Grand Junction Free Press, December 2011.

This compilation does not include personal or Objectivist blog posts, web comments, letters to politicians, radio show call-ins, videos, etc., all of which actively spread our message and advance our goals. Please contact me privately if your published item was inadvertently left off the compilation, or if you have any administrative questions or issues.

Dr. Peikoff on Objectivism Versus Applications Thereof

By Diana Hsieh

On Monday, Dr. Peikoff released a podcast with the following question:

Do you distinguish official Objectivist doctrine from Ayn Rand's personal views?

His answer was excellent: it's a brief but clear explanation of the meaning and implications of the "closed system" view of Objectivism. That's what I advocate, what I practice, and what I defended in my recent blog post. If you're interested in these matters, I recommend listening to his answer. (It's only 2 minutes, 31 seconds long.)

Here's the transcription, courtesy of D Jason Fleming:

Philosophy is broad principles, about the nature of the universe, the means of knowledge, the nature of man, and then the value doctrines that all that leads to. All this is interconnected. In a proper philosophy, it's one system, as in Objectivism.

Now that does not mean that every specific application of that philosophy is inherent in the philosophy. A philosopher can hold views that do not necessarily follow from the philosophy, but are its application to a realm where facts are established by science, or observation, or some other appropriate means.

Philosophy is wide abstractions. That does not entail specific choices or specific interpretations of how they apply to concretes. For instance, take my theory of history presented in the DIM book. I make a definite distinction between official Objectivst doctrine and Peikoff's theory of history. Now, I believe that my theory is based on Objectivism, but it does not follow from Objectivism, it is not therefore Objectivism as such. It is my application and each person has to decide is this the correct application or not? It is not subjective, but it's still not a question of what is the philosophy, but what is its applications? And in that regard, Ayn Rand and I and others can disagree without anybody contradicting the philosophy.

Remember also that there are personal options in applying broad philosophic principles. You can say that, for instance, "sex is good" is a philosophic principle, but that does not necessitate any special particular position or clothing, et cetera. It does specify that the general principles of morality apply, such as fraud, force, evasion, et cetera. But as apart from that, there are many different interpretations and complete options which would be personal, not official.

So: yes, but without that implying a contradiction or a subjective viewpoint.

Hear, hear!

Rick Santorum on Pregnant Rape Victims

By Diana Hsieh

Rick Santorum says that pregnant rape victims should "accept the gift of human life" and "make the best out of a bad situation." And yes, that's what every advocate of "personhood for zygotes" must say.

As Ari and I said in The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties:

In [a] 2004 survey, around 1.5 percent of women who got an abortion cited rape or incest as the cause of the pregnancy. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term when the pregnancy was caused by a sexual assault victimizes her yet again. Even if she gives up the child for adoption, she must live with the ever-present physical reminder of her assault for the duration of her pregnancy. Moreover, the woman might feel a torturous conflict over the born child: she might desperately want to raise her own child, but abhor the thought of raising the child of her rapist.

That last point, I think, is particularly important.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Pronunciation Poem

By Diana Hsieh

Pablo Romero sent me this awesome poem about the insanity of English pronunciation, as a follow-up to the poem on grammar:

Dearest creature in creation
Studying English pronunciation,
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse
I will keep you, Susy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye your dress you'll tear,
So shall I! Oh, hear my prayer,
Pray, console your loving poet,
Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!
Just compare heart, beard and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it's written).
Made has not the sound of bade,
Say said, pay-paid, laid, but plaid.
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as vague and ague,
But be careful how you speak,
Say break, steak, but bleak and streak.
Previous, precious, fuchsia, via,
Pipe, snipe, recipe and choir,
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.
Hear me say, devoid of trickery:
Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles.
Exiles, similes, reviles.
Wholly, holly, signal, signing.
Thames, examining, combining
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war, and far.
From "desire": desirable--admirable from "admire."
Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier.
Chatham, brougham, renown, but known.
Knowledge, done, but gone and tone,
One, anemone. Balmoral.
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel,
Gertrude, German, wind, and mind.
Scene, Melpomene, mankind,
Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather,
Reading, reading, heathen, heather.
This phonetic labyrinth
Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth, plinth.
Billet does not end like ballet;
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet;
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Banquet is not nearly parquet,
Which is said to rime with "darky."
Viscous, Viscount, load, and broad.
Toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation's O.K.,
When you say correctly: croquet.
Rounded, wounded, grieve, and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive, and live,
Liberty, library, heave, and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven,
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the difference, moreover,
Between mover, plover, Dover,
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police, and lice.
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label,
Petal, penal, and canal,
Wait, surmise, plait, promise, pal.
Suit, suite, ruin, circuit, conduit,
Rime with "shirk it" and "beyond it."
But it is not hard to tell,
Why it's pall, mall, but Pall Mall.
Muscle, muscular, gaol, iron,
Timber, climber, bullion, lion,
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, and chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor,
Ivy, privy, famous, clamour
And enamour rime with hammer.
Pussy, hussy, and possess,
Desert, but dessert, address.
Golf, wolf, countenance, lieutenants.
Hoist, in lieu of flags, left pennants.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rime with anger.
Neither does devour with clangour.
Soul, but foul and gaunt but aunt.
Font, front, won't, want, grand, and grant.
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say: finger.
And then: singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, age.
Query does not rime with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post; and doth, cloth, loth;
Job, Job; blossom, bosom, oath.
Though the difference seems little,
We say actual, but victual.
Seat, sweat; chaste, caste.; Leigh, eight, height;
Put, nut; granite, and unite.
Reefer does not rime with deafer,
Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ate, late,
Hint, pint, Senate, but sedate.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific,
Tour, but our and succour, four,
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, guinea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria,
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion with battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay.
Say aver, but ever, fever.
Neither, leisure, skein, receiver.
Never guess--it is not safe:
We say calves, valves, half, but Ralph.
Heron, granary, canary,
Crevice and device, and eyrie,
Face but preface, but efface,
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust, and scour, but scourging,
Ear but earn, and wear and bear
Do not rime with here, but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, clerk, and jerk,
Asp, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.
Pronunciation--think of psyche--!
Is a paling, stout and spikey,
Won't it make you lose your wits,
Writing "groats" and saying "grits"?
It's a dark abyss or tunnel,
Strewn with stones, like rowlock, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict, and indict!
Don't you think so, reader, rather,
Saying lather, bather, father?
Finally: which rimes with "enough"
Though, through, plough, cough, hough, or tough?
Hiccough has the sound of "cup."
My advice is--give it up!

Also, in case you missed it in the comments of the last poem, C Andrew posted this gem (with a small correction from me):

How to spell fish: gh o ti

the gh from enough, the o from women and the ti from emotion.

I love that!

NoodleCast #115: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

By Diana Hsieh

On Sunday, 29 January 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: 29 January 2012

Listen Now

Download the Episode

Download the Enhanced M4A File (15.9 MB)
Download the Standard MP3 File (15.1 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: 29 January 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)

Unfortunately, I've been distracted by the WTFuffles this week. However, since the matter is of little significance to me, and I'll be focusing on my real work this upcoming week, and I encourage others to do the same. Also, remember that SnowCon 2012 will be March 15th to 18th in mountains of Colorado.

Question 1: Being Pragmatic (5:51)

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.

Links:

Pragmatism in Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Menace of Pragmatism by Tara Smith (original lecture)

Leonard Peikoff's History of Philosophy, Part 2, Lectures 7-8

Question 2: Feigning Indifference to Attract a Man (22:12)

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.

Links:

Podcast for Sale on Finding Good Prospects for Romance and Friendship by Diana Hsieh

Question 3: Ignosticism Versus Atheism (28:57)

Should rational people describe themselves as "ignostics" rather than "atheists"? By rational principles, no cognitive consideration should be given to arbitrary assertions. Since the concept of God is invariably a floating abstraction and incoherent in its definition, shouldn't the claim that God exists be dismissed as arbitrary and invalid – rather than being answered in the negative? If so, shouldn't rational people describe themselves as ignostics? In contrast to atheism, ignosticism is "[the] view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless." [Wikipedia]

My Answer, In Brief: "Atheism," not "ignosticism," is the proper name to describe a person who reject the claim that God exists, and that's justified not only by the failure of the arguments for the existence of God, but also God's impossible qualities.

Links:

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

Podcasts on Philosophy of Religion by Diana Hsieh

God, Faith, and the Supernatural by Greg Perkins

Question 4: Explaining Atheism (39:36)

How can I effectively explain my atheism to religious believers? When I discuss religion with believers – mostly Christians – I find that I can't easily explain why I don't believe in God. Should I appeal to the principle of the "primacy of existence"? Should I explain the problems with the arguments for the existence of God? Or should I try a different approach?

My Answer, In Brief: The best way to discuss the reasons for rejecting belief in God depend on the context, particularly whether you are explaining your own views or trying to convince the other person. Either way, be patient and try to speak to their rational concerns.

Links:

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith

Podcasts on Philosophy of Religion by Diana Hsieh

God, Faith, and the Supernatural by Greg Perkins

Rapid Fire Questions (57:59)

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

Why did you and Paul choose to live in Colorado?

Recently, Tim Thomas decided not to attend the Bruins trip to the White House. If you were a part of a team going to the White House, would you attend? What if you were personally invited to the White House?

What is your opinion of the OPEN Act as an alternative to SOPA and PIPA?

How can we start an American philosophical revolution that encourages students to value freedom, independent thinking, and rational egoism rather than altruism and egalitarianism?

Conclusion (1:04:36)

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!

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.

Welcome to NoodleFood!

I'm Diana Hsieh, a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009.

My primary outlets are this blog NoodleFood and my podcast NoodleCast. My other active projects include Explore Atlas Shrugged, PhiloFiles, Rationally Selfish, OLists, and Modern Paleo. I also contribute to Front Range Objectivism, The Coalition for Secular Government, Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM), and Repeal the Amazon Tax.

For more information about me, visit DianaHsieh.com. E-mail me at diana@dianahsieh.com, and follow me on twitter @DianaHsieh.

Currently, I have two awesome co-bloggers on NoodleFood: my husband Paul Hsieh and my friend Greg Perkins.

Paul Hsieh is a physician specializing in orthopedic and emergency radiology. He blogs about science, technology, and random humorous items at GeekPress. He's a co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and regularly writes for its blog, We Stand FIRM. He has published a slew of op-eds and essays on health care policy. You can e-mail Paul at paul@paulhsieh.com, and follow him on Twitter @PaulHsieh.

Greg Perkins is a software architect working in the R&D labs at Hewlett-Packard, Boise. His degree is in mathematics and computer science. Greg hosts The Objectivism Seminar. Aside from work and philosophy, he plays jazz saxophone professionally with groups such as The Sidemen and Onomatopoeia. You can e-mail Greg at greg@eCosmos.com, and follow him on Twitter @gregperk.

NoodleFood has been going strong since March 2002.

Back to TOP