A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle... bacon for your brain!

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The Bailout Made Easy

By Paul Hsieh

The cover from this week's edition of The Economist reduces the bailout to its essentials:



(Unfortunately, the article itself supports the bailout.)

In contrast, 8 years ago Howard Husock wrote the following about the Community Reinvestment Act in "The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities":

...Even without a no-down-payment policy, the pressure on banks to make CRA-related loans may be leading to foreclosures. Though bankers generally cheerlead for CRA out of fear of being branded racists if they do not, the CEO of one midsize bank grumbles that 20 percent of his institution's CRA-related mortgages, which required only $500 down payments, were delinquent in their very first year, and probably 7 percent will end in foreclosure. "The problem with CRA," says an executive with a major national financial-services firm, "is that banks will simply throw money at things because they want that CRA rating." From the banks' point of view, CRA lending is simply a price of doing business—even if some of the mortgages must be written off.

...Looking into the future gives further cause for concern: "The bulk of these loans," notes a Federal Reserve economist, "have been made during a period in which we have not experienced an economic downturn." The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America's own success stories make you wonder how much CRA-related carnage will result when the economy cools.
I think we're finding out exactly how much right now...

Read more...

More Analysts Blaming Government For Economic Crisis

By Paul Hsieh

Here are a couple more articles in which non-Objectivists are correctly putting the blame for the current mortgage crisis on government policies, not the free market.

In "Credit Crisis Not a Free-Market Failure", Thomas Sowell writes:

...Since risky investments usually pay more than safer investments, the incentive is for a government-supported enterprise to take bigger risks, since they get more profit if the risks pay off and the taxpayers get stuck with the losses if not.

The government does not guarantee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but the widespread assumption has been that the government would step in with a bailout to prevent chaos in financial markets.

... If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.
In "Reject bailout rush to socialism", David Littmann writes:
...Washington does not want you to remember the four ways it has brought us to this unfortunate moment. Let's review:

* The Community Reinvestment Act (approved in 1977 during the Carter administration) compelled banks and other lenders to loan money and grant mortgages in areas where they would have never dreamed of making such loans because of the exceptional risks of default. Banks were denied charters for growth and geographical expansion if regulators found them to be out of compliance with these politically correct regulations, enforced by the Federal Reserve and others.

* Government-sponsored enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) received taxpayer subsidies to provide mortgages and are favored by politicians and regulators with the privilege of maintaining very thin capital reserves as buffers against losses that result from defaulting on delinquent mortgages.

* Insane accounting rules, the Sarbanes-Oxley regulatory regime and Securities and Exchange Commission rules have contributed to the mess, especially the devastating "mark-to-market" requirement. The financial reports of firms and financial organizations must carry assets on their ledgers as though they were forced to sell them immediately into distressed markets, rather than at book value...

* And the Federal Reserve spurred subprime lending by pursuing inflationary money policies that dropped bank-borrowing rates to 1 percent.

To avoid greater government involvement and messes in the future (think Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security), Washington must extricate itself from the market. As real estate prices become more affordable, credit-worthy firms and individuals throughout the nation and world are ready to pounce on bargains that will appreciate.

The government got America into this situation. The solution is simple: Government, get out.
I'm heartened to see this idea in circulation. We should continue to stress this point when we discuss this issue with legislators as well as others.

To keep things simple and easy-to-understand, I've been using the three key points that Tony Donadio mentioned in his earlier comment:
(1) The current crisis was created by government interference in the housing market.
(2) Further interference will only make things worse.
(3) It is unjust to make innocent people who did not make or take out irresponsible loans pay for the mistakes of those who did.

Read more...

Bush Vs. Ott On The Bailout

By Paul Hsieh

As one would expect, President Bush called for a massive financial bailout in his recent speech to America. So much for fiscally conservative Republicans.

I prefer this fictional Bush speech from satirist Scott Ott a lot better. Here are a few excerpts:

Bush: Congress Must Act to Save Stupid People

..."To sustain this shining city on a hill," Mr. Bush said, "we need to rescue the ignorant, irresponsible folks -- from Wall Street to Capitol Hill to Main Street -- who got us to where we are today. We must guarantee that no American suffers the soft bigotry of being forced to live with the consequences of his bad decisions."

..."If these giant companies fail, then America will be left with nothing but thousands of small to mid-sized financial firms that made prudent investment decisions during the past 15 years."

..."It is a moral imperative that we guard the civil rights of these idiots," he said. "If we fail, then we face the specter of free market capitalism run amok, and millions of Americans will feel the painful lash of personal responsibility across their backs."

Read more...

Correspondence on the Bailout

By Diana Hsieh

Objectivist historian John Lewis recently sent his representative a terse note against the bailout. His representative responded with the pro-bailout crap. And Dr. Lewis wrote a lengthy, informative, and very pointed reply. He has given me permission to reproduce the whole correspondence, but you might just want to skip down to his reply. Then you might want to forward it to your representatives in Washington.

Here's the first letter:

From: John Lewis

Dear Speaker Pelosi and all US Representatives:

I oppose all bailouts of financial institutions by the US government.

Government regulation and meddling is solidly to blame for this crisis.

We must reduce government involvement in the economy now.

Sincerely;
Dr. John David Lewis
Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University
Senior Reasearch Scholar, Social Philosophy and Policy Center
Here's the reply from Representative David Price of North Carolina:
Date: September 29, 2008
From: Congressman David Price
To: Dr. John David Lewis
Subject: Reply from Congressman David Price

Dr. John Lewis

Durham, NC 27705

Dear Dr. Lewis:

Thank you for contacting me about our country's financial crisis and the proposed recovery legislation. Today the House defeated this legislation, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, by a vote of 205 to 228, despite my support.

Like you, I do not have any interest in "bailing out" Wall Street firms and business leaders who have speculated recklessly, endangered our country's consumers and homebuyers, and resisted regulation that would protect the public interest. My concern is for Main Street - for the people depending on a sound economy and the availability of credit to buy a house or car, to run their business and meet payroll, and to save for college and retirement.

Like it or not, we are all in this together, and the entire economy is threatened as we teeter on the edge of a 1929-style meltdown. Today Wachovia Bank, a North Carolina mainstay, collapsed. But this goes much deeper than bank failures. Last week, the City of Raleigh could not find a buyer for a $300 million bond, and Wake County cancelled its planned $472 million bond issue for school construction, Wake Tech, libraries, and open space acquisition. Both have AAA bond ratings.

Although President Bush lacks the credibility to be of much help, I take the dire warnings of economic analysts very seriously, particularly in light of everything that has happened in the last few weeks. But I could not support Secretary Paulson's request for a blank check for $700 billion to purchase mortgage-backed securities and stabilize the markets.

I thus became part of the intensive discussions over the last ten days to rewrite the Treasury plan in several critical respects. The legislation which came before us today would:

o Provide strict independent oversight and accountability for all activities undertaken by the US Treasury

o Release the $700 billion in installments, with multiple reviews along the way

o Make certain that the entire $700 billion is recaptured by the Treasury and thus by the American taxpayer, by requiring that taxpayers share in any profits resulting from the government's help and providing for assessment of the financial industry for any remaining losses

o Forbid "golden parachutes" and limit other compensation for executives of participating financial institutions.

o Require the government to work with participating institutions and loan servicers to help deserving homeowners negotiate reasonable repayment terms and stay in their homes

The defeat of the bill prolongs and perhaps deepens the crisis. Coordinating with the Senate, the House will need to return within days to try again. Perhaps the economic situation will then lead some members to reconsider. Perhaps the bill can be changed in ways that attract a majority; I certainly have a list of improvements I would like to see. But considering the members who voted "no," I will want to scrutinize carefully any changes designed to attract them.

I am committed over the next few days to continue working to avert financial collapse and get the best possible deal for America 's taxpayers and homeowners. I welcome and share your concern about this situation and will be glad to hear from you at any time.

Sincerely,

DAVID PRICE

Member of Congress
Here's Dr. Lewis' stellar response:
Date: Monday, September 29, 2008
From: John Lewis
To: Congressman David Price of North Carolina
Subject: Reply from Congressman David Price

Dear Congressman Price;

Thank you for your frank and fast response. I should be clear. I am opposed to bailing out these firms. But what I am more opposed to is the entire political culture of regulation--including manipulation of interest rates, Sarbanes-Oxley, changes in accounting rules, the Community Reinvestment Act, and a scad of others--that has fostered this mess. Two weeks ago no politician in Washington knew this was coming. Suddenly, after several all-nighters, they have enough knowledge to grant a quarter of a trillion dollars to a government bureaucrat, to dole out as he sees fit--and to promise another half-trillion, should his actions make it worse.

Meanwhile, the country focuses on the allegedly evil CEOs, "speculators" (read "investors"), and loan initiators who were earlier damned for NOT making loan money available to high-risk borrowers. I remind you that the Community Reinvestment Act penalizes firms for not making such risky loans. Now, suddenly, those firms are villified for following the law. Well, that's government--it faces no penalties, except a periodic popularity contest, and can contradict itself with impunity.

Most of all, I resent the politicians and punditrs who are claiming, contrary to evidence, that it is now "impossible to get a loan" on Main Street. It is impossible to borrow millions on Wall Street, but regional banks that made prudent investors are not in danger--unless the government further coerces them.

The government is not saving Main Street--it is nationalizing it. Is it not true that, with the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government now holds paper on tens of millions of American mortgages? What does granting American citizens "equity positions" and "profits" in companies seized by the government mean, except communism? Don't we condemn Hugo Chavez for nationalizing oil companies?

I will also recall, as a student of economics, that the Great Depression was caused by a string of obnoxious legislation, and was then cruelly extended by massive government interference. Contrary to prevailing, but long-discredited, opinion, the government did not save us from that mess. It created, and prolonged, it. Twenty years earlier, JP Morgan ended the panic of 1908 in a few weeks--bankers in 1929 could not so act. Today, Morgan would have been jailed for the private pooling of assets he arranged. Is it not true that AIG was told by the Attorney General of New York that it would not be allowed to sell sound assets in order to save the holding company? Who is to blame for the collapse of a huge, and largely sound company, excpet those who forbhid its executives from acting?

You will forgive me if I have no respect for the likes of Senator Schumer, who started a run on a bank with his irresponsible statements and then claimed virtue for them, or Senator McCain, up to his neck in the Keating scandal, or Senator Dodd, whose reputation was on the rocks until this crisis saved him, or Senator Obama, who had not a clue at a White House meeting last week, and then went on-script before the press to cover his ignorance. You will please forgive me if promises of "oversight" by these PR men do not instill confidence.

I much more respect the CEOs who have spent their years in the business, and who face actual consequences for their errors. They do not have access to hundreds of billions of dollars of other people's money--and they do not expect their stockholders to approve busines plans that cannot foretell whether they will lose three-quarters of a trillion dollars, or get some of it back in five or twenty years. They do not have their hands in the pocket of every person who produces in this country.

The truly brave politicians are those who recognize that the government is largely to blame for this mess, and should start emergency repeal of regulations now. Only this can allow responsible CEOs to start making decisions based on sound economics, rather than fear of breaking a law.

Sincerely;
John Lewis

Dr. John David Lewis
Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University
Thank you, John!

Read more...

Monday, September 29, 2008

Carnivals

By Diana Hsieh

Two carnivals have included NoodleFood posts lately, so I wanted to shout back to them: Carnival of the Godless and Weight Management and Fitness Forum.

Read more...

Keep Up the Pressure

By Diana Hsieh

The proposed bailout plan has failed in the House of Representatives.

The vote against the measure was 228 to 205, with 133 Republicans joining 95 Democrats in opposition. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans.
HOORAY! As a result, the plan is stalled, at least for the moment:
Supporters vowed to try to bring the rescue package up for consideration again as soon as possible, perhaps late Wednesday or Thursday, but there were no definite plans to do so.
That's great news. But I'm not terribly surprised, I must say. (I can't claim credit for the following insight, however. A friend suggested it to me last night.) Why not?

People are inundating their representatives with strong opposition to the bailout. Mark Udall, a representative from Colorado running for Senate reported: "People are mad. My calls are mixed, between people who say 'No' and people who say 'Hell no.'"

Members of the House of Representatives are vulnerable to political discontent. Unlike in the Senate, the whole bunch (except those retiring) is up for re-election in just over a month. So as this vote indicates, many do not wish to risk their seat by voting in favor of wildly unpopular legislation -- despite all the pressure from party leadership.

So what does that mean for us? It means: keep up the pressure. If you representative voted "no," call or e-mail him to give your moral support. If he voted "yes" (as mine did; he's retiring), then call or e-mail to tell him that you're upset with him. You can find out how your representative voted here.

Unfortunately, the web site for the House (including their contact form) seems to be down, as does Congress.org. Does anyone have a working link to suggest?

Update: Reading that NY Times article in full, I'm impressed by the seemingly principled opposition to the bailout. See these descriptions and quotes:
Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said he intended to vote against the package, which he said would put the nation on "the slippery slope to socialism." He said that he was afraid that it ultimately would not work, leaving the taxpayers responsible for "the mother of all debt."

Another Texas Republican, John Culberson, spoke scathingly about the unbridled power he said the bill would hand over to the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., whom he called "King Henry."

A third Texan, Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat, said the negotiators had "never seriously considered any alternative" to the administration's plan, and had only barely modified what they were given. He criticized the plan for handing over sweeping new powers to an administration that he said was to blame for allowing the crisis to develop in the first place.
In contrast, consider what the supporters of the bailout are saying:
When it comes to America's economy, [Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Democratic Majority Leader] said, "none of us is an island."

Representative Maxine Waters, a Democrat, said the measure was vital to help financial institutions survive and keep people in their homes. "There's plenty of blame to go around," she said, and attaching blame should come later.

Read more...

Adopt an Investment Bank

By Diana Hsieh

Via Bill, a funny column on the bailout from Joel Stein in the LA Times:

Even though I understand so little about economics that much of my long-term investments are tied up in Costco products, I feel pretty sure that letting Congress give Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson $700 billion to buy super-crappy mortgages is not the right call.

Sure, like any American, when I see a photo on the Internet of an adorable little investment bank and find out it's at risk of being put to sleep, I want to throw in $2,000 to $3,000 of my own money to adopt it. But instead of jacking up inflation, letting the dollar sink further and paying higher taxes so we can keep up cheap borrowing -- which is what this plan amounts to -- I think we need to let those who made bad loans get burned. We need to accept that credit will dry up and that maybe -- for just a bit -- we'll have to stop buying more than we can afford.
And:
So let's not stop the short-selling of financial stocks -- the only brake on overindulgence -- as Paulson did last week. Let's not strip Congress of yet another power by giving the Treasury secretary the right to decide where to dole out a large portion of our budget. Let's not encourage more risky loans by making profits private and losses public. And let's not create some bastardized form of communism in which the new rule is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to the size of the investment bank he owns shares in."
I don't agree with the whole column. He fails to recognize government regulation as the root problem of the current crisis, instead claiming that "we've got basically sound banking system that got a little under-regulated during the Clinton administration." However, I do appreciate his insistence that the people and corporations who took the risks assume the responsibility for their losses. And I liked his humor: it highlighted the absurdity of treating corporations as objects of government charity.

Read more...

Army at Home?

By Diana Hsieh

Why is it that I'm not comforted by this "we're from the army and we're here to help" plan?

The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they're training for the same mission -- with a twist -- at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.
And:
"I can't think of a more noble mission than this," said [1st BCT commander Col. Roger] Cloutier, who took command in July. "We've been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home ... and depending on where an event occurred, you're going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones."
Oy. Will these soldiers also be on call for "manmade emergencies and disasters" like ... say ... economic collapse caused by rampant government interference in the financial markets? Whoever wins the election, the answer surely would be "yes."

I love and respect the American military, and that's why I'm so worried about these plans to deploy the military inside the US. Soldiers must be trained to operate effectively in hostile territory amongst potentially hostile civilians. In those circumstances, every unknown person must be regarded with suspicion, and the overriding goal must be the mission at hand. In contrast, maintaining peace and security at home amongst fellow Americans is the job of the police -- and the national guard, if necessary -- including in times of crisis. That's what they're trained to do, at least in theory.

This news highlights the very real threat to our liberty of reshaping the American military into a humanititarian force abroad, as has happened since World War 2. The threat is not just that taxpayer dollars are wasted on feel-good missions without any relevance to national security. The threat is not just that soldiers must risk their lives for the sake of random strangers in foreign lands, rather than to preserve and protect American liberty. The threat is the logic of the idea: if the military help foreigners in times of disaster, why shouldn't they also help Americans too? To the extent that the military is easygoing and friendly, thereby allowing it to operate at home with all due respect for American civilians, then it's not an effective fighting force: it would not have the kind of detachment, discipline, and ambition to fight real wars in hostile territory. And, if it is that kind of effective fighting force, then any operation inside the US risks a ugly clash between civilians and military. Either way, it's bad.

(Via The Agitator.)

Read more...

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Recap #11

By Diana Hsieh

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

And this week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #16

By Diana Hsieh

Here's yet another a Sunday Open Thread for your thoughts:

For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

Read more...

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Opposing the Bailout

By Paul Hsieh

If you want to let your elected officials know that you oppose the $700 billion Bush Bailout of Wall Street, you can use this website to send them an e-mail.

For example, Rob Abiera has sent the following excellent letter to his elected officials:

Dear *** SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE XXX ***

I am writing as a constituent to ask you to oppose the Bush Administration's request for $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. The healthiest thing for our economy would be to allow the market to work and let those firms deal privately with the consequences of their own actions. I don't believe in accepting responsibility for other people's actions and I have no desire to see my taxes used to help some Wall Street firms out of a situation which they created, not me. The answer to the current economic situation is not handouts to Wall Street tied to more regulations. The answer is to get the government OUT of the economy.

I'm sure that I disagree with Senator DeMint of South Carolina on other issues, but on this issue I have seen no better statement of the truth about this situation than his recent press release.

In this instance, Senator DeMint speaks for me, as well.

*** YOUR NAME ***
*** YOUR ADDRESS ***
Rob also included the text of Senator DeMint's Press release.

I liked Rob's letter a lot, and I've already sent similar e-mails to my own Senators and Representative.

BTW, Alex Epstein has a good piece on the bailout on the Fox News website, "The Bailout: Just a $700 Billion Hedge Fund?"

Update from Diana:

I send the following letter to my representatives, plus various other politicians and officials:
Dear So-And-So,

I'm writing to tell you that I strongly oppose any bailout of Wall Street.

The current crisis was created by government controls and regulations. The only rational solution is to allow the market to correct itself by allowing full freedom of trade. The ban on shorting financial stocks should be lifted now: the markets cannot function properly without shorting. The government should not bail out any Wall Street firms -- nor anyone else. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's irresponsibility.

Then, to preserve economic health in the long run, all of the myriad anti-capitalist controls on the markets must be repealed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be totally privatized. The Community Reinvestment Act must be repealed.

Do not blame the current crisis on the free markets. Such crises are the inevitable product of a dangerous hybrid of capitalist markets and government controls. More government meddling will only exacerbate the problem. The only real solution is to move to a fully free market in which the government upholds and protects the rights to property and contract. Only then will every person be free to act on his own rational judgment in pursuit of his own wealth, security, and happiness. That's what America should be all about.
I sent that to:
You need not write anything so lengthy and detailed as my letter. Just a single line saying that you oppose the bailout -- and that you oppose government controls of the financial markets -- would be fantastic.

Read more...

Experiments in Eating

By Diana Hsieh

As I mentioned in my post explaining my new diet, my exclusion of grains, sugars, and modern vegetable oils from my diet over the past few months means that I feel consistently good. I rarely feel sluggish, tired, or slow -- as I used to do routinely. As a result, when I do feel that way, I notice. And, being the curious kind of person I am, I try to figure out the cause, so that I can avoid making that same mistake in the future. I just don't enjoy food hangovers.

My goal for this post is to outline my process for identifying foods I should avoid, based on their deleterious effects on me. I'm going to discuss three cases: (1) flour and sugar, (2) oatmeal, and (3) Chipolte. With regard to the particulars, your mileage may vary. While I do think that certain kinds of foods are generally healthy while others are not, individuals differ in their response to foods. Even for one individual, the response to a given food may vary based on other factors in the diet.

Case #1:

Quite soon after my change in diet -- back in mid-July -- I was able to connect my consumption of large amounts of carbohydrates from sugar and flour to feeling sluggish, even a full day later. Here's what I reported to Liriodendron of Spark A Synapse at the time:

For quite some time, I've been trying to figure out why I often feel sluggish while exercising. The feeling isn't the same as the light-headed sensation of low blood sugar. (Plus, it often happens even if I've eaten a good snack just before exercising.) Instead, the problem is just an inability to really push myself in a workout: I can go at a certain slow pace, but no faster. I can even go at that slow pace for quite some time, but I'm definitely not enjoying myself.

The problem was that I just couldn't correlate this feeling with anything about my diet or sleep or whatnot. In fact, I couldn't tell whether I'd be sluggish or not before I started exercising. It would just sometimes happen and sometimes not, seemingly at random -- often as much as two to four times per week. It was very frustrating!

Today, it happened again. I was doing 11 minute miles on the rower instead of 9 minute miles. However, this time was remarkable -- only because it hasn't really happened in weeks, during which I've been restricting my bad carbs [i.e. eating no sugars and grains]. In particular, it hasn't happened at all this past week, when I've been on a no-bad-carb-whatsoever diet. However, last night at the SuperFROG meeting, I ate some [tortilla] chips, plus two brownies, ice cream, and two madelines over the course of the evening. [Oh, and a margarita.] Yikes! It was a serious bad-carb-fest for me. And today -- this evening, in fact -- I was sluggish in exercising.

So I suspect that too many bad carbs are the cause of my sluggishness in exercise, but that the effect is often somewhat delayed. That's why it was hard for me to see any pattern. Perhaps what matters most is what I ate yesterday rather than what I've eaten today.

Obviously, I'm going to have to test out this theory a bit more, but I do think that I'm on to something. If so, it's the most substantial measurable effect that I've seen in myself from eliminating bad carbs -- but it's a huge deal for me.
Since then, I've further confirmed those initial findings: eating foods with flour and sugar makes me sluggish, often hours and hours later. I'm more sensitive to that sluggish feeling now: I can feel it set in within a few hours of eating, apart from any exercise. However, I suspect that it might peak 12-14 hours after eating the offending food.

Notably, the kind of "bad-carb-fest" in which I indulged that evening in July used to be a regular part of my diet. In fact, I though I'd been pretty restrained in my eating that evening, by my ordinary standards. Normally, I would have done much worse. In the months since then, I've eating a few desserts -- and by a few, I mean about three. But I've never done anything remotely like that "bad-carb-fest." As a result, I've not rowed any more of those awful 11 minute miles either.

Case #2:

For the past few Saturdays, Paul and I enjoyed a breakfast consisting of a bowl of overnight-soaked oatmeal cooked in milk, plus a good helping of delicious nitrate-free bacon. However, I realized that I was feeling sluggish on the weekends as a result -- on the day of eating that oatmeal and on Sunday too. So last weekend, I skipped the oatmeal. And wow, I felt fabulous the whole weekend, just like I do throughout the week. I was able to be much more productive as a result. I expect to do the same this weekend -- and thereafter.

The lesson is simple: while I could surely tolerate a wee bit of oatmeal, a full serving is just too much for me.

Case #3:

Just this Monday, Paul and I went to Chipotle for dinner. I felt particularly good that day: I'd eaten only lightly, and I had tons of energy. At Chipolte, I got a skinless burrito with double pork, black beans, tomato salsa, corn salsa, cheese, and guacamole. I only ate half of it, along with a large glass of my own raw milk. That's a dinner I can handle -- or so I thought.

In fact, I felt like absolute crap very shortly after eating it -- and for hours thereafter. I felt stuffed -- in a really unpleasant, bloated kind of way -- all evening. (My stomach wasn't upset, however.) The next morning, I still felt awful. I didn't want to eat, so I fasted. Around 2 pm, I finally felt normal again, so I ate -- and I felt fine.

So what in that meal made me feel that way? Initially, I wondered whether I'd just eaten too much. That's unlikely, as I can chow down tons of good-quality food like steak and veggies. I'll just feel full thereafter, not icky. So I decided to test the meal again by eating half of my remaining Chipotle (i.e. 1/4 of the total) and a small glass of milk. Once again, I felt awful for some hours, although not nearly as bad as before.

So then I wondered about the composition of the food. The milk couldn't be the problem, as I drink that all the time. I've been known to have a strange reactions to preservatives, but Chipotle uses fresh, high-quality ingredients prepared in-house, so I probably don't have too much to worry about on that score. However, according to this handy nutritional calculator, my burrito did have more carbohydrates than I expected:
  • 920 calories
  • 43 g fat
  • 36 g effective carbohydrates
  • 75 g protein
The corn salsa accounted for 19 g of effective carbohydrates. However, I don't think that was the problem either. Carbohydrates make me sluggish, not bloated and icky. Plus, I have eaten a fair amount of corn this summer, with nothing like those effects. However, I don't eat beans ordinarily, so that might be an issue. Yet the amount of beans in the whole burrito was pretty negligible.

The problem -- I suspect -- was the vast quantity of salt in the meal. In part thanks to a question from Daniel, I did notice that my burrito tasted very salty. And based on the nutritional calculator, my whole burrito had 3148 g of sodium. Since a teaspoon of salt is 2300 mg, that means just over 1 1/3 teaspoons of salt in the whole burrito. That's a shocking amount. I do use salt at home, but because I'm preparing my own foods, all the salt in my foods is salt that I add. Personally, I like my red meats a bit salty. I brine chicken and pork in salt water before cooking but I rinse them thoroughly and I don't add any additional salt thereafter. And I don't like much salt on my veggies. However, the critical point is that I would never add anything remotely resembling 1 1/3 teaspoons of salt to a meal. Even a 1/4 teaspoon in a meal would be quite a bit for me, but in eating just half of that burrito, I ate 2/3 of a teaspoon of salt.

Plus, from what I understand, salt intake does cause the body to retain water. That could explain why I felt nasty, bloated, ans sluggish. So salt is a plausible hypothesis in this case.

But, one might ask, why haven't I noticed this effect before? I can think of two reasons. First, before my change in diet, I might have been acclimated to more salt in my diet, as apparently 77% of an average person's salt intake comes from processed and prepared foods. In other words, perhaps I'm more sensitive to lots of salt now. Second, given that I routinely felt cruddy in various ways before my change in diet, I simply might not have noticed anything particularly distinctive after eating a high-salt meal like Chipotle's.

I could test this salt hypothesis by drinking 2/3 of a teaspoon of salt in water with a meal that I know to be otherwise fine for me. However, I'm not eager to do that, given how awful I felt after eating that half of a naked burrito. So instead, I might just watch my salt intake -- and notice whether I feel fine or icky after eating more than my usual amount of salt.

Of course, my response to salt -- if that is indeed the problem -- may be somewhat unique to me. Others may be able to eat my diet, then eat a meal at Chipotle without any problem whatsoever. As I said at the outset, your mileage may vary.

Also, I should mention that -- contrary to the proclamations of so many experts -- salt does not seem to be any great danger to health in ordinary people. Dr. Michael Eades has a good post on a recent study showing that consuming less salt (i.e. under 2300 mg per day) was correlated with higher mortality from all causes, including heart disease. It begins:
Another what bites the dust? Another one of the shibboleths of "healthy living" that the nutritional establishment has been pounding us over our heads with for decades: the idea that salt is bad for us.

Now, in the wake of the three Woman's Health Initiative studies showing that fat doesn't seem to cause heart disease nor cancers or the breast or colon, comes a study from the venerable NHANES II data showing that not only does salt intake (or to be more precise, sodium intake) not cause premature death from heart disease it actually seems to protect against it. And consuming more sodium appears to protect against premature deaths from not just heart disease but from all other causes as well. It's been a bad couple of weeks for the holier-than-thou crowd.
In particular, the study found:
The researchers set the breakpoint of their data analysis at the 2300 mg of sodium recommended in the nutritional guidelines. After analyzing the nutritional and mortality data on this basis it turned out that those subjects who consumed less than 2300 mg of sodium per day had a 1.37 times increased risk (95% CI 1.03-1.81, P=.033) of dying from heart disease and a 1.28 times increased risk (95% CI 1.1-1.5, P=.003) of dying from all causes as compared to those who consumed more than 2300 mg of sodium per day.
If you'd like to know more, read the whole thing, including the links. Notably, the study was not a randomized, controlled trial, so it shows only correlation not causation.

Before closing out this post, I'd like to make a few general comments:
  • Often, we must train ourselves to be observant of our own internal bodily states. If you're not eating well, you've probably trained yourself to ignore how your body feels. It might require some effort to notice.

  • To determine what particular foods agree with you or not, you have to get yourself to where you're feeling damn good 95% of the time. Only then will the episodes of yuck become clear and distinct to you. To get to that point, I recommend eating a high-fat, high-protein diet of whole, real foods, without any grains, sugars, and modern vegetable oils. (Of course, ignore that if you have some medical condition.) If that diet doesn't work for you after a few weeks of really eating it, then try something different.

  • Don't assume that the last thing you are was the cause of your present ills. As I discovered with flour and sugar, the effects can be surprisingly long-lasting.

  • Be willing to use yourself as a guinea pig. If a food seems to cause problems for you, try it again in various ways. Attempt to pinpoint the "active ingredient" causing you ill. Then you can just avoid that one thing, rather than needlessly depriving yourself of other foods.

  • Read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories to learn the outlines of a well-grounded and integrated science of nutrition to which you can integrate your own personal experience.

Read more...

Friday, September 26, 2008

Walking Cultural Activism: Got Reason?

By Greg Perkins

Tammy and I thought it would be great to produce a series of T-shirt designs for those occasions when it is appropriate to wear our ideas on our sleeves.  Bonus points if they aren't just provocative but actually spark some good engagement!

Here is the first design.  It uses the same font and style of a certain famous ad campaign, echoing its clever device for pointing to something important we need and should want:



(Just click through to BoltOfReason.Com to check out all the available styles and colors. We of course love suggestions and requests -- we're already working on a lot of fun ideas, and if you are the first to hit us with a new one that we use in a future shirt design, you'll get one for free!)

Read more...

The Cost of Termination

By Diana Hsieh

What's the cost in weeks of pay of firing workers in various countries? The Economist has the chart. I'm definitely surprised that China is so much higher than France and Germany.

Read more...

Consistent Evil

By Diana Hsieh

The evangelicals want to make America a Christian nation. And they really mean it.

For example, consider how Dani -- a supporter of Colorado's Amendment 48 describes herself:

I am a wife and a homeschooling mother of three beautiful girls and an adorable baby boy. I am also a right-wing fanatic on assignment from God to be a good helper to my husband and to train up my children with the Fear and Admonition of the Lord! My beliefs are radical, oftentimes offensive, and fundamental to the core. You're either going to love me or hate me, but I am here to share the TRUTH to an entire generation trained not to notice and blinded by lies. ===> "Have I now become your enemy by telling the TRUTH?" - Galatians 4:16
In response to her blog post supporting Amendment 48, I posted the following comment:
Are you willing to punish a woman with the death penalty or life in prison for terminating a pregnancy, whatever her circumstances? To lock up a woman so that she will bring a non-viable fetus to term?

Do you want to ban the birth control pill and IUD, thereby causing more unwanted pregnancies? Would you like to see a ban on in vitro fertilization? To grant frozen embryos in labs inheritance rights?

If not, then you ought not vote for or support Amendment 48 -- because those evils and absurdities would be the real-life consequences granting fertilized eggs full legal rights. To kill or harm a fertilized egg would be a criminal offense under Colorado law, regardless of the circumstances.

The fact is that Amendment 48 is deeply, profoundly anti-life. For the details, read "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," an issue paper by Ari Armstrong and myself. It's available for download at:

http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf

The Christians supporters of Amendment 48 are welcome to act on their own beliefs in their own lives. They have no right to force their religious views on the rest of the people of Colorado -- just as Muslims have no right to force Christians to pray to Allah five times per day.
Now, consider her reply:
Diana - you asked, "Are you willing to punish a woman with the death penalty or life in prison for terminating a pregnancy, whatever her circumstances?"

Yes, abortion should be re-criminalized and punishable by death. As individuals we do not have the authority to legalize murder, and I believe the government should enforce the law upon those who take an innocent life. In the same respect, if a baby is conceived through rape or incest, we should not punish the child because it's father is a criminal - the rapist and child molester should also be swiftly put to death.

If a woman's "health" is supposedly at risk, you don't need to intentionally kill the baby in order to save the mother's life. Doctors should do everything in their power to save both the mother and the baby, and if the child should die from natural causes in the process, then there is nothing immoral or illegal about that.

"Do you want to ban the birth control pill and IUD, thereby causing more unwanted pregnancies?"

Well, if those forms of birth control terminate a fertilized egg or prevent implantation, then yes, they should be banned.

"To grant frozen embryos in labs inheritance rights?"

Yes! As evidence of the Snowflake Children - Since 1997 over 400,000 frozen embryos became real live human beings and were given a chance at life.

"The Christians supporters of Amendment 48 are welcome to act on their own beliefs in their own lives. They have no right to force their religious views on the rest of the people of Colorado..."

The fundamental right to life is a universal right given to us by our Creator, regardless of a person's beliefs or religious background. Even the atheists have the right to life, and radical, baby-killing feminists like you, Diana, do NOT have the authority or the right to decide when an innocent child should die. Quit being so selfish and quit advocating for the real evils and absurdities which comes from re-defining when a person becomes a person.

Amendment 48 is simple - The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of fertilization.
If that's not enough, you can find more comments from her about the evils of the self and the like in these Politics Without God comments.

A person who shrinks from the horrifyingly destructive real-life consequences of his abstract ideas might be -- maybe, possibly -- convinced to abandon those ideas by some further experience or argument. He has an internal conflict that might be resolved for the better.

Such a happy resolution is not possible when a person wholeheartedly embraces the horrifyingly destructive real-life consequences of her vicious ideas -- as does Dani. Such a person is not admirable for her consistency; consistency is only a virtue in the service of the good. Such a person is completely evil, likely irredeemably so.

And wow, I've seen that too much lately.

Read more...

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Objectivist Roundup #63

By Diana Hsieh

Rational Jenn hosts the Objectivist Roundup this week. Go check it out!

Read more...

Professor Wikipedia

By Paul Hsieh

What if Wikipedia was a college professor?

"The funniest video of the year. [Citation needed.]"

(Via Clicked.)

Read more...

Intellectual Thugs

By Diana Hsieh

Over the past week, I have been absolutely horrified by the venomous hatred expressed by those supposed lovers of life, peace, and mercy: the fundamentalist Christians committed to strangling America with the law of God.

Undoubtedly, the ugliest examples are the myriad death threats e-mailed to Nick Provenzo for his defense of the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. The various responses of right-wing bloggers (and their commenters) was little better. They grossly misread Nick's remarks, then refused to consider any correction.

One might hope for better from the intellectual leaders of this movement. After all, they earn their bread and butter by argument: they seek to persuade others that their views are correct. So even if hopelessly wrong, they must maintain some semblance of rationality, right?

Nope.

Catholic talk show host Barbara Simpson said on the air that "there was a day when someone would take somebody like this Provenzo guy out in an alley and beat him beyond whatever. He deserves it." Nice.

Yet even worse was Laura Ingraham's interview of Nick: she failed to conduct anything remotely resembling a fair debate, yet her methods were more subtle than Simpson's explicit appeal to thuggery.

To understand the problem, let me explain how to respectfully argue with someone who disagrees with you.

You allow someone to explain their views. You ask them tough questions about the reasons for and implications of those views. The whole time, you allow them to speak for themselves. You represent their views fairly. And then you crush them with your own devastating criticisms, always politely given. You allow them to reply, and then you crush them again. That's what any decent radio talk show host -- and any respectable intellectual -- does in debate.

That's not what Laura Ingraham did. She made no effort to understand Nick's position. Despite his protests, she refused to focus on the actual intellectual disagreement between them. She refused to consider his reasons for his views. Worst of all, she attributed a variety of morally repugnant ideas to Nick, purely of her own invention. Then she refused to allow him to reply, choosing instead to pontificate to her listeners.

Her method of debate was that of a gang leader seeking to impress her minions by intimidation, not that of a respectable intellectual concerned with airing out ideas in pursuit of knowledge. Given that, Nick deserves a good bit of credit for conducting himself as well as he did.

As Objectivism makes ever-greater inroads into the culture, some people will behave like civilized adults in debate. And others will use whatever dirty tricks they can muster to misrepresent our views. We've just seen a taste of the latter. I must admit, I've grown accustomed to civilized discourse between reasonable adults -- or at least the appearance thereof. So this week has been a bit of a wake-up call for me. I expect that I'm not alone in that feeling.

Read more...

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The One Minute Case for Stock Shorting

By Paul Hsieh

Galileo Blogs gives a nice "One Minute Case For Stock Shorting". He makes the case that, "Short selling is moral and should be permitted."

More Americans (citizens and policy makers alike) need to read this.

Read more...

Breast Is Best!

By Diana Hsieh

Here's something that even The Onion couldn't make up: PETA urges Ben and Jerry's to switch to human breast milk.

(Via Dave.)

Read more...

Who Wants a Bailout?

By Brandon Byrd

As you have no doubt heard, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently presented a plan to Congress that seeks to buy as much as $700,000,000,000 in "troubled assets" from prominent financial institutions. But why should these firms be the only ones to get massive amounts of milk from the taxpayer teat? I don't know about you, but I've purchased plenty of assets of dubious future value in my day... why shouldn't the government help me out too?! If you're like me, I'm sure you're wondering why the government isn't doing more to help alienate you from the negative consequences of your poor decisions. After all, isn't that what the government's there for? Granted, they do a lot for us in that regard... but if they're bailing out Wall Street, why not bail out Main Street -- or MY Street?

I recently ran across a website (hat tip to BoingBoing) asking just this question: BuyMyShitPile.com. From their site's description:

With our economy in crisis, the US Government is scrambling to rescue our banks by purchasing their "distressed assets", i.e., assets that no one else wants to buy from them. We figured that instead of protesting this plan, we'd give regular Americans the same opportunity to sell their bad assets to the government. We need your help and you need the Government's help! Use the form below to submit bad assets you'd like the government to take off your hands. And remember, when estimating the value of your 1997 limited edition Hanson single CD "MMMbop", it's not what you can sell these items for that matters, it's what you think they are worth. The fact that you think they are worth more than anyone will buy them for is what makes them bad assets.
So head on over and list whatever crap you'd like for whatever amount you think it's worth. If enough of us band together, maybe we can reap the rewards of the welfare state too!

Read more...

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Jim DeMint, Man of the Day

By Diana Hsieh

While I'm sure that I'd have some mighty strong disagreements with South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, he seems to be the only politician talking sense about the current financial crisis. Here's his press release:

DeMint Opposes Wall Street Bailout: Plan does not solve the problems that caused the current credit crunch, and could make them much worse

September 22, 2008 - Washington D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) announced his opposition to the $700 billion plan proposed by the Bush Administration to bailout Wall Street.

"After reviewing the Administration's proposed bailout plan, I believe it is completely unacceptable. This plan does nothing to address the misguided government policies that created this mess and it could make matters much worse by socializing an entire sector of the U.S. economy. This plan fails to oversee or regulate the government failures that led to this crisis. Instead it greatly increases the role for Secretary Paulson whose market predictions have been consistently wrong in the last year, and provides corporate welfare for investment firms on Wall Street that don't want to disclose their assets and sell them to private investors for market rates. Most Americans are paying their bills on time and investing responsibly and should not be forced to pay for the reckless actions of some on Wall Street, especially when no one can guarantee this will solve our current problems."

"This plan will not only cause our nation to fall off the debt cliff, it could send the value of the dollar into a free-fall as investors around the world question our ability to repay our debts. It's also very likely that this plan will extend the cycle of bailouts, encouraging other companies to behave in reckless ways that create the need for even more bailouts, triggering an endless run on our treasury. This plan may make things look better for Wall Street in the next couple months, but the long-term consequences to our economy could be disastrous.

"There are much better ways of dealing with this problem than forcing American taxpayers to pay for every asset some investor doesn't want anymore. We should start by reforming government policies and programs that created this mess, including the Federal Reserve's easy money policy, the congressional charters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Community Reinvestment Act. Then Congress should pass a number of permanent and proven pro-growth reforms to encourage capital formation and boost asset values. We need to make permanent reductions in the corporate tax and the capital gains tax rates. We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, which encourages companies to take jobs and investment overseas."

"It's a sad fact, but Americans can no longer trust the economic information they are getting from this Administration. The Administration said the bailout of Bear Stearns would stop the bleeding and solve the problem, but they were wrong. They said $150 billion in new government spending using rebate checks would solve the problem, but they were wrong again. They said new authority to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would solve the problem without being used, but they were wrong again. Now they want us to trust them to spend nearly a trillion dollars on more government bailouts. It's completely irresponsible and I cannot support it."
In response, a friend of mine who works in the financial markets said:
He puts the blame squarely where it belongs -- on govt policies. The programs he wants "reformed" are some of the real baddies -- (they should be abolished rather than reformed). He calls for tax cuts which is fine of course, but that needs to be paired with calls for spending cuts. Otherwise we will aggravate the inflation problem that he rightly points out will result from Pauslon's plan.

Most impressive was the absence of blaming things on 1) the use of leverage 2) bad decisions by private entities, 3) lack of regulation over the private sector 4) greedy fat cats on Wall street 5) speculators and short-sellers.
Indeed.

Read more...

U.S. Economic Freedom Index

By Diana Hsieh

The Pacific Research Institute recently published the U.S. Economic Freedom Index: 2008 Report. It's an analysis and ranking of the 50 United States by economic freedom. You can download the full PDF for free. (The annotated US map is also cool.)

Objectivist historian Eric Daniels contributed to the book. He wrote the first chapter, and contributed to the third.

Happily, Colorado is ranked #3! I pity all you poor bastards in New York, #50.

Read more...

Palin's Pastor = Hunter of Witches

By Diana Hsieh

Oy, if you thought Barack Obama's pastor was a nutjob, just consider Sarah Palin's: "The pastor whose prayer Sarah Palin says helped her to become governor of Alaska founded his ministry with a witchhunt against a Kenyan woman who he accused of causing car accidents through demonic spells."

Ari Armstrong has the details. Just remember Exodus 22:18: "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live."

Read more...

Monday, September 22, 2008

Antitrust: Punishing Success

By Diana Hsieh

Jason Crawford published an excellent letter to the editor in the Wall Street Journal on the potential for an antitrust suit against Google:

Microsoft's general counsel, Brad Smith, says that "if search is the gateway to the Internet . . . this deal [with Yahoo] will put Google in position to own that gateway and the information that flows through it" ("Top Lawyer Is Selected as U.S. Mulls Google Suit," Marketplace, Sept. 9). Why shouldn't they own it? They built it. Google is the most popular search engine because of the relevance and speed of its results; it is the dominant advertising platform because ads are more effective there than anywhere else. Google deserves its leading position and the rewards that go with it.

This case, like every other major antitrust case from Standard Oil to Microsoft, aims to punish a winning company for the crime of winning. This is a grave injustice to Google and will only harm the industry in the long run. Why place the ideal of "competition" ahead of the economic productivity that competition is supposed to promote?

It would be far more just, and better for the economy, to simply let the winners win.

Jason Crawford
Seattle
Great letter, Jason!

Read more...

Nick Provenzo on Laura Ingraham Show

By Diana Hsieh

Nick Provenzo writes:

I am slated to be a guest on the nationally syndicated Laura Ingraham Show at 10:30 AM Monday morning to defend a woman's moral right to have an abortion. Ingraham's show is tied as the fifth highest-rated radio talk show in America. I have been told that my segment will be run approximately 10 to 12 minutes. Ingraham is a staunch opponent of abortion and I expect my appearance to be a hard-fought battle of ideas.

To find a station carrying the broadcast in your area, visit here.

To call the show, dial 1-800-876-4123.
Fight the good fight, Nick!

Update #1: Nick hasn't been on yet, but he is upcoming, as Ingram has mentioned him. You can listen to the live stream here.

Update #2: Nick did as well as he could have, but Laura Ingraham was not even remotely fair in her interview. I'll say more in a post later today or tomorrow.

Read more...

Yaron Brook on the Economic Crisis

By Paul Hsieh

The September 19, 2008 issue of Time magazine recently quoted Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, in its recent article on the economic crisis:

What Would Ayn Rand Have Done?

...But as the largest bailout in government history unfolded in almost dizzying waves over recent days, a very different view prevailed at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, an outpost of free-market, anti-government thinking located just a few blocks from the newly aggressive and highly interventionist Department of Treasury in downtown Washington.

"It's a complete disaster," said Yaron Brook, the executive director of the center. "Its a form of national socialism of the financial markets...This is socialism 101."

...Brook doesn't blame speculators, traders or financiers for the market's near-collapse, but instead blames government for having overregulated the markets in the first place. The business leaders bailed out by government this week "are victims," he said, "and the government set it up." Washington underreacted to previous crisis, let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spin wildly out of control as quasigovernment agencies while taxpayers piled up unsecured debt in their names. The crisis, he added, was "really fed throughout by government policies."
He also notes that the current Republican administration is doing more harm in intervening in the marketplace than a Democratic administration likely could have.

Read more...

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Recap #10

By Diana Hsieh

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

And this week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #15

By Diana Hsieh

Here's yet another a Sunday Open Thread for your thoughts:

For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)

Read more...

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Scholarship Funds for the Leadership Program of the Rockies, Take Two

By Diana Hsieh

I'm pleased to report that I've been accepted in the Leadership Program of the Rockies, the nine month training course for the up-and-coming policy makers in Colorado, particularly aimed at people of a more conservative persuasion.

I'm even more delighted to report that I've raised about $500 for my tuition via NoodleFood and OActivists. LPR will be contributing $200 from their scholarship fund as well. So I'm still in need of about $200.

If you haven't yet donated but wish to do so, please contact Jenn Hamann, the finance director of the Leadership Program of the Rockies, sometime in the next few days. Her e-mail address is JennHamann#AT#aol#DOT#com. Please indicate that you wish to help fund a scholarship for me in particular. Remember, any donation would be tax-deductible -- and even a small donation would help.

You can donate via LPR's website (with PayPal) or by check to Leadership Program of the Rockies; 1777 South Harrison Street, Suite 807, Denver, CO 80210. You might wish to verify with Jenn that funds are still required before actually donating, however. Also, please e-mail me, so that I can thank you properly and update you on the program.

Again, I give a huge thank you to everyone who has already donated -- or will donate. You folks are awesome!

Read more...

The New Diet

By Diana Hsieh

In late June, I blogged about the cow share I bought from Isle Farms, in order to obtain a supply of raw milk, i.e. milk straight from the cow, without any pasteurization or homogenization. In that post, I said:

As for why I'm going to so much trouble to obtain raw milk, I have two reasons. First, it tastes much better. It's deeply satisfying in a way that its equivalent of pasteurized, homogenized whole milk equivalent is not. Second, it's part of an overall change in diet. I'm consuming more protein and certain kinds of fats, and I'm trying to avoid stuffing myself full of goodness-only-knows-what from processed foods, particularly carbohydrates. I'm also interested in trying natural grass-fed beef, likely from this local supplier, as I have worries about the inappropriate feed given to cows intended for consumption. (I'm also interested in more natural forms of other meats like pork, lamb, and chicken.)
Since that time, my diet has evolved even further in a "paleo" direction -- with fascinating results. My cholesterol numbers are much improved. I've lost weight, even while gaining muscle. I no longer suffer from strange energy lows. I've made significant gains in strength and balance. My tastes in food have changed -- radically. I can easily ignore feelings of hunger for hours on end, even through vigorous exercise. I've lost all my cravings for sweets. Best of all, I enjoy what I eat immensely -- and I don't miss the rest.

Overall, I feel so much better than I have in years -- if not ever.

I'm utterly fascinated by all that I've been reading -- and experiencing -- with these changes in diet. So now I'm going to inflict bestow them on you: I aim to blog on issues pertaining to diet and health on Saturdays.

Let me start with a brief description of my own diet at present. I'll delve into some of the details and reasons in future posts.

My general goal is to approximate -- to some reasonable degree -- the hunter-gatherer diet that humans were adapted to eat by a few hundred thousands of years of evolution. That diet changed radically with the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago. It has changed even more in the last 100 years or so. Today, the major effect of that change is the consumption of far more refined carbohydrates -- particularly in the form of sugar and flour -- than most humans bodies can handle well. For many, the result is the infliction of the "diseases of civilization," particularly diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Today's dominant view that such chronic health problems are caused overconsumption of fat (and of calories in general) is not -- and was never -- supported by science. As Gary Taubes painstakingly documents in his stellar book Good Calories, Bad Calories, that view was pushed on us by a few determined dogmatists, with a good dose of help from the federal government, without regard for the facts.

So what do I eat? My diet consists of plenty of meat, eggs, dairy, nuts, vegetables, and limited fruit. I do not eat pasta, rice, bread, or sugar. (I'm not eating potatoes at present, as they're very starchy. However, I'll likely return to eating them in moderation and on occasion this winter.)

I usually eat a good hunk of meat at least once if not twice per day. I eat beef, lamb, pork, chicken, and buffalo on a regular basis. I also eat seafood once or twice per week. I go out of my way to buy high-quality meats from animals not treated with hormones or antibiotics. Such meats are more expensive, but they taste much, much better than the barely-edible crap sold in regular grocery stores. I also rely on eggs, greek yogurt, and cheese as sources of protein. I'm not a fan of soy.

I consume lots of fat. I enjoy deliciously fatty cuts of meat like ribeye steaks. I braise vegetables in raw cream. I drink unskimmed raw milk, and make my own greek yogurt from it. I usually eat cheese and raw nuts at least once per day. In cooking, I use olive oil, bacon fat, butter, and coconut fat liberally. However, I studiously avoid all modern vegetable oils (e.g. canola oil, corn oil) and transfats.

I eat lots of vegetables and some fruits. I try to eat a wide range of vegetables, within the limits of what's in season -- or better yet, what's ripening in my garden. I limit my fruits because they often contain quite a bit of sugar -- although berries are better on that score.

I avoid anything made with sugar or high-frucose corn syrup. On rare occasion, I will sweeten something with raw honey or maple syrup. I don't drink juice or soda. I avoid all artificial sweeteners too, as I think they tend to create an expectation of and desire for sweetness.

I also avoid grains, particularly wheat. I avoid white flour like the plague -- and contrary to contrary to popular belief, whole grains are just as bad. On rare occasion -- meaning less often than once per week -- I'll eat a slice of sprouted bread or a small bowl of overnight-soaked oatmeal. (The sprouting and the soaking are supposed to make the grain more digestible. However, I find that if I eat more than a wee bit, I can feel the ill effects.)

So that's what I eat, with only very rare exceptions. Notably, I do no counting or balancing or weighing. I'm not particularly concerned with the macronutriet composition of my meals. Instead, I have two basic goals: (1) to eat real, whole, unprocessed foods, and (2) to avoid foods that spike my blood sugar. These two categories strongly overlap, but they aren't quite the same.

Six months ago, I would have regarded such a diet as a major deprivation. However, that's not how it feels now. It's very easy -- and very rewarding -- to eat well. As for the science supporting my new diet, that will have to wait for another Saturday.

Read more...

Friday, September 19, 2008

A Critique of Global Warming Science and Policy

By Diana Hsieh

This upcoming panel discussion on global warming in Los Angeles looks promising:

A Critique of Global Warming Science and Policy

A panel discussion at the University of Southern California

What: A panel discussion challenging widely accepted views on global warming science and policy, followed by a Q&A

Who: Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Willie Soon, geoscientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Where: Taper Hall of Humanities (THH) Room 102, 3501 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles 90089

When: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 7:00 pm

Description: It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions aimed at preventing global warming. But are these beliefs and policies justified? What does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Is government economic intervention aimed at severely restricting greenhouse gases an appropriate policy response? Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.

Bios:

Keith Lockitch is a fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, specializing in science and environmental policy. His writings have appeared in numerous newspapers and he has been a frequent guest on radio shows. He is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics. Dr. Lockitch teaches a history of physics course for the Ayn Rand Institute's Objectivist Academic Center. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and has conducted postdoctoral research in relativistic astrophysics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University.

Willie Soon is both an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Soon is the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for the journal New Astronomy. He is also the chief science adviser of the Science and Public Policy Institute. He writes and lectures both professionally and publicly on important issues related to the Sun, other stars, the Earth, as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics. He is the author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection.

Read more...

Hsieh OpEd on Employer Insurance Mandate

By Paul Hsieh

Today's (September 19, 2008) edition of the Rocky Mountain News has printed my OpEd supporting free market health care reform and opposing Colorado Amendment 56 (which would require businesses with more than 20 employees to purchase health insurance for all its workers.)

Free market reforms healthier than Amendment 56

By Paul Hsieh, MD
Friday, September 19, 2008

This fall, Colorado voters must decide whether to require all businesses with more than 20 employees to provide health insurance for their employees (Amendment 56). Although voters may be tempted to say "yes," this is an immoral and impractical solution to the problem of rising health insurance costs.

It is morally wrong because it violates the rights of employers and employees to negotiate to their mutual self-interest in a free market.

Businessmen create jobs through rational thought and hard work. Consequently, they have the moral right to decide on what terms to offer those jobs to prospective employees, including specific wages and benefits.

Similarly, workers have the right to negotiate for any specific wages and benefits they desire, and the right to reject job offers that don't meet their criteria. But they have no right to demand a specific salary or benefit from employers (such as health insurance) via government force.

Two motivations behind this proposed law are (1) the mistaken notion that health care should be a guaranteed "right," and (2) the desire to force businesses (rather than government) to pay for this supposed obligation. But health care is a need, not a right. A right is a freedom of action in a social context, such as the freedom of speech.

It is not an automatic claim on a good or service that must be produced by someone else. There is no such thing as a "right" to a car or an appendectomy. Any attempt by the government to guarantee a false "right" to health care can only be done by violating the actual rights of someone — in this case, business owners.

Forcing businesses to provide health insurance to employees will also cause serious economic harm to Colorado. Such a law would cause many businesses to fire workers, outsource jobs, or cancel plans to hire new workers. This will disproportionately harm unskilled workers and those at the lower end of the income scale — the very people the measure is intended to help.

According to Howard Roerig, owner of Seale & Associates, Inc. in Centennial, "This measure will have a chilling effect on all small businessmen. Although I don't have 20 employees at present, I would make certain never to hire that 20th person. The costs would be so high that I would be better off starting another firm in a different state, and letting it do business in Colorado as an out-of-state firm.

"I would have to find some means of skirting this measure or else close my doors."

Other states such as California have driven away many businesses and jobs due to high taxes and heavy regulations. Colorado must not repeat these mistakes.

To "solve" the problem of high insurance costs by foisting those costs onto businesses would be just as wrong as "solving" the problem of rising gasoline prices by forcing businesses to pay their workers' gasoline expenses.

Our current high health care costs have been caused by decades of government interference in the free market. Hence, the proper solution is not more government regulations, but instead free market reforms that addressed the problems caused by prior government controls.

Some examples of free market reforms include allowing Coloradans to purchase health insurance across state lines and eliminating mandatory insurance benefits. Patients should be allowed to purchase Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for small routine expenses and insurers should be allowed to sell low-cost catastrophic-only policies to cover rare but expensive events. These measures could greatly reduce insurance prices and allow patients to purchase from the best offerings of all 50 states, thus making insurance available to thousands of Coloradans who want to purchase it but currently cannot afford it. Furthermore, the state legislature could adopt these reforms without permission from the federal government.

If Coloradans want to address the problem of high health insurance costs, they should reject the Amendment 56 and instead demand free market reforms. This is right for employers, right for employees, and right for Colorado.

Paul Hsieh, MD, of Sedalia is co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM)
I'd like to thank Ari Armstrong for suggesting that I write about this issue and Howard Roerig for providing me with a fantastic quote that concretizes the economic issues at stake.

Read more...

The Proper Subservience of Christian Women

By Diana Hsieh

Some evangelicals are less than thrilled with Sarah Palin's new role as the Republican vice-presidential candidate. According to them, a Christian woman's proper place is in the home, raising her family and supporting her husband. While probably a minority opinion at present, such views are worthy of our attention, I think. They represent the leading edge of evangelical Christianity in America. If the Christians win their battle for American politics and culture, these views will become ever-more dominant. Women will be confined to their homes, relegated to a life of supporting husband and children. Women will not be lawyers, doctors, politicians, journalists, or entrepreneurs. They will be daughters, then wives, and then mothers.

If that seems insane, just consider the following quotes collected from Christian message boards about Sarah Palin:

Why is a wife and mother with five children (including a newborn with Down's syndrome) running for vice president? She has a bountiful amount of work cut out for her by the Lord sitting in her lap and around her dining room table. I can certainly respect her Christian and biblical views, but I am really amazed at Christians leaping to embrace putting a wife and mother into political office--particularly an office that will essentially make her the helpmate of the highest official in the land and practically remove her from her husband and children.

Isaiah 3:12 truly applies: "As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths." I can assent to Sarah Palin's conservative views and even applaud them, but I mourn for a nation whose men have forgotten how to lead their families and their land in the way our Founders envisioned and the way God intended. A wife and mother has already been elected by God to the highest office in the land. She has her own particular husband to help, his calling to make successful, and her children to nurture and train to the glory of God. How could the vice-presidency possibly compare with a task that God has personally designed her to fill?
And:
The home, the family, the raising of children--it is the zenith of human accomplishment. It's a full-time job, requiring full-time attention if it's to encompass all God intended. [...]

The message is "women can have it all"...and it is a lie, because they can't.

The message is "men and women should have equal access to the same roles". The reality is, that's not how God created HIS universe to run. He created them male and female, and yes, by their very biological design, nature screams at our dull senses "YOU ARE DIFFERENT"! Created for different purposes, created to compliment one another in their life work.
Such views are not from nowhere: they are actively developed and advocated by Christian intellectuals. For example, some critics of Palin favorable quoted Christian minister William Einwechter's 2004 essay entitled "Should Christians Support a Woman for the Office of Civil Magistrate?" It argues that a woman ought not hold any public office, based purely on scripture. Here's the opening paragraph:
With more and more women entering the political sphere and running for political office, the conscientious, biblically oriented Christian is confronted with the question of whether or not he should give his support and vote to a woman. This question becomes more pressing for many when the "best candidate," i.e., the most conservative, pro-life candidate in a particular race is a woman. A number of years ago, we in Pennsylvania were confronted with this issue when an articulate, pro-life, politically conservative woman (who was also a wife and mother) ran for governor of our state. Many Christians enthusiastically supported her. But not all of us were confident that this was the right or consistent thing to do. The following essay grew out of the concern over her candidacy, and seeks to address the larger questions of the acceptability of women magistrates and the Christian's responsibility before God in regard to supporting a woman for political office.
His methodology is simple: scripture reigns supreme, reason is dispensable. He writes: "In approaching this matter, we need to first understand that these questions can only be answered from Scripture. Mere human opinion or reason is not sufficient for the Christian. The Word of God is the only infallible, authoritative standard for directing us into the paths of righteousness."

He considers four scriptural "arguments" against women holding political office. His primary case -- with the most far-reaching implications -- is found in the first section. Here it is, in full:
1. The Biblical Doctrine of the Headship of Man Disqualifies a Woman for Civil Office.

The scriptural revelation of the creation of man and woman, and the scriptural commentary on their creation establishes the headship of the man over the woman. The text of Genesis 2:7 and 2:18-24 teaches us that man was made first, and then the woman was made to be man's helper and companion. The Bible instructs us that this order of creation was by God's design, and that it establishes the positional priority of the man over the woman in regards to authority and leadership. In setting forth the authority of the man over the woman in the context of the local church, Paul appeals to the creation order saying, "For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13). In another passage, Paul states the divinely ordained order of authority and headship: "But I would have you to know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. 11:3). Therefore, the Apostle Paul teaches that God has decreed that the order of authority be as follows: God-Christ-Man-Woman. Each one in this "chain of command" is under the headship (i.e., authority) of the one preceding him or her. Later on in this same text, Paul, as in 1 Timothy 2, calls upon the order of creation to show man's headship over the woman. He says, "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man" (1 Cor. 11:8-9). The Bible explicitly states that the man has headship over the woman, and that this headship is not based on cultural factors, or even the fall; rather, it is based on the created order established by God Himself.

Now it is also plain in the Bible that God has ordained that the order of the headship of man must be maintained in each governing institution set up by God. There are three primary institutions established by the Lord for the ordering of human affairs. These are the family, the church, and the state. Each of these institutions has authority to govern within its appointed sphere. We could say, then, that there are three "governments" in the world: family government, church government, and state government. In each of these governments, God has commanded that men bear rule. The man has headship in the family (Eph. 5:22-24), the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 14:34-35), and also by implication and command, in the state as well (1 Cor. 11:3; Ex. 18:21; see point 2 below).

Could it be that the man has headship only in the family and the church but not in the state? No, this could not be, lest you make God the author of confusion, and have Him violate in the state the very order He established at creation and has revealed in Holy Scripture! If one is going to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the civil sphere, then to be consistent, he or she also needs to argue for the acceptability of women bearing rule in the family and the church. Now it is true that some attempt to do just that; but their denial of male headship for the family, church, and state is really a rejection of the Word of God and is a repudiation of God's created order. And it is not sufficient to contend that it is acceptable to support a woman for civil ruler when she is the best candidate, unless you are also prepared to argue that it is acceptable to advocate a woman for the office of elder because she is better suited than the available men in the church; and unless you are also prepared to say that the wife should rule over her husband if she is better equipped to lead than her husband is.
Notice that his arguments do not merely concern the proper place of women in politics. He explicitly claims that men must rule over women in the family, in the church, and in politics. Yet his analysis would apply just as well to any endeavor, including business. By his principles, no woman should ever claim any authority over any man in any sphere of life, regardless of her knowledge, skills, experience, and capacities. So a woman doctor ought never order a male nurse to medicate her patient as she directs. A woman police officer cannot rightfully demand a male criminal to submit himself to lawful arrest. A woman professor cannot fail a male student for cheating over his protests. A woman business owner cannot fire a male employee for failing to show up to work on time. God has designed men and women such that men always have "positional priority" over women in "authority and leadership."

That's our future -- unless we fight for rational values today.

Read more...

Back to TOP