Professor Reports Student to Police for Defending Concealed Carry

At Central Connecticut State University, student John Wahlberg was reported to the police by his professor Paula Anderson, after he gave a presentation in class on campus violence in which he defended concealed carry.

After Wahlberg raised the point that allowing students with concealed weapons permits to carry on campus might have saved lives in incidents such as the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, Professor Anderson filed a complaint with the campus police against Wahlberg stating that his presentation was making students feel "scared and uncomfortable".

The police questioned Wahlberg about his own firearms and where he kept them:

"I was a bit nervous when I walked into the police station," Wahlberg said, "but I felt a general sense of disbelief once the officer actually began to list the firearms registered in my name. I was never worried however, because as a law-abiding gun owner, I have a thorough understanding of state gun laws as well as unwavering safety practices."

I guess Professor Anderson doesn't think that academic freedom extends to students arguing to exercise certain constitutionally-protected rights.

As another student noted:

"If you can't talk about the Second Amendment, what happened to the First Amendment?" asked Sara Adler, president of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus. "After all, a university campus is a place for the free and open exchange of ideas."

Update: As others have noted here and elsewhere (e.g., Volokh and Instapundit), we may not have the full story. So appropriate caution is warranted before leaping to hasty conclusions.

Read more...

Worthless Study, Worthless Reporting

Yesterday, I was annoyed to read a Denver Post article on a new diet study. Here's the opening of the article:

Two decades after the debate began on which diet is best for weight loss, a conclusion is starting to come into focus. And the winner is not low-carb, not low-fat, not high-protein, but any diet.

That is, any diet that is low in calories and saturated fats and high in whole grains, fruits and vegetables -- and that an individual can stick with -- is a reasonable choice for people who need to lose weight. That's the conclusion of a study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, representing the longest, largest and most rigorous test of several popular diet strategies.

Simply based on my own experience -- let alone what I've read in Good Calories, Bad Calories and elsewhere -- I was skeptical of those conclusions. But mostly, I was irritated that the article didn't provide even the basic data required to support the opinions of its many quoted experts. It didn't discuss the methods used, the diets tested, or the results. (Seriously!) It was all assertion without any supporting facts.

So I dug up some actual facts about the study at Scientific American:

The study subjects were divided into four groups, each assigned to a special diet. One group ate a "low-fat, average-protein" diet (20 percent fat, 15 percent protein, 65 percent carbs); a second consumed a "low-fat, high-protein" diet (20 percent fat, 25 percent protein, 55 percent carbs); a third followed a "high-fat, average-protein" diet (40 percent fat, 15 percent protein, 45 percent carbs); and the remaining group ate a "high-fat, high-protein" diet (40 percent fat, 25 percent protein, 35 percent carbs). All four regimens were heart-healthy (low in saturated fat and cholesterol) and included 20 grams (0.7 ounce) of daily dietary fiber. For each study participant, the researchers calculated personalized daily consumption levels ranging from 1,200 to 2,400 calories per day.

Duh! The requirement of low saturated fat is really dumb, and the requirement of low dietary cholesterol is even dumber. But more importantly, not one of those diets is genuinely low-carb, and the high-fat diet isn't that either. As Richard Nikoley of Free the Animal observes in his debunking:

The lowest carbohydrate intake of all the diets was a whopping (yea, I can do the media hype, too) 35%. Presuming an average 2,500 kcal intake per day, that's about 220 grams of carbs -- not "low carb" by any means. So, this is merely a comparison between various moderate to high carb approaches -- approaches that leave insulin high and fat mobilization low.

The highest fat intake is only 40%. A true high fat diet is 60%+ of energy from fat. You can't go above about 35% from protein, and that's pushing it (25% is more realistic). Simple: protein remains about the same, and the tradeoff is between carbs and fat. This study was heavily weighted in favor of carbs, particularly when one considers that carbs hammer insulin and fat has little to no effect. High insulin = no fat mobilization.

So, given those defects, what did the study actually find? Here's what the Scientific American article reports:

"No matter which way you look at it, there were no [statistically significant] differences between any of the groups," Loria says. At six months, the average total weight loss for all of the groups was approximately 14 pounds (6.5 kilograms); by the end of two years that number had dipped to about nine pounds (four kilograms). "A lot of times in these weight loss studies, people tend to regain," notes Loria, adding that she will now study strategies that help people keep lost pounds off.

In other words, the recommendation of weight loss via "any diet that is low in calories and saturated fats and high in whole grains, fruits and vegetables" cited in the Denver Post article is wholly unjustified. The study didn't test diets varying along any of those dimensions -- e.g. more or less refined grains versus no grains, low in saturated fats versus high in saturated fats, more or less fruits and veggies, etc. So any conclusions about the value of those foods in weight loss are completely unwarranted. More particularly, as Richard observed, the study "proved that all diets with excess carbohydrate are crap and deliver virtually no results for most people."

Bingo!

Read more...

Walking Cultural Activism: People of Reason

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 a design that underscores a cardinal value, the primary virtue, our essential nature -- highlighting a fundamental contrast with all those who tout being people of faith:

(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...

Homecoming "Queen"

The Washington Post ran a story the other day on the controversy over the recent George Mason University homecoming queen contest, the "Ms. Mason" pageant.

A gay student and drag queen performer entered "as a joke," competing as his drag alter ego "Reann Ballslee." He competed by wearing "a silver bra and zebra-print pants and . . . lip-syncing to Britney Spears's 'Womanizer.'" The other contestants included

a government and politics major from Chesapeake and a Chi Omega sorority member who told the school newspaper she should win because "I have pride in Mason to the point where my towels are green and gold."

"Reann" won the pageant.

"It was just for fun," Allen, 22, said over coffee at the Johnson Center, where he was congratulated by classmates with hugs and squeals. "In the larger scheme of things, winning says so much about the university. We're one of the most diverse campuses in the country, and . . . we celebrate that."

Apparently, the pageant had been held for five years previously with little engagement by the student body. Few students were interested in an event regarded as "the province of pretty blondes and fraternity boys." This year, however, with Ryan Allen as a contestant, students were interested.

"I've never been into homecoming over here. This is the first time I've actually wanted to support someone," said Melissa Benjjani, 21, from Lebanon. "He deserves to be queen. He's already a queen for everybody."

All was not joy in Mudville, however, when Reann won. GMU is in a years-long campaign "to revamp its image from commuter school to distinguished institution of higher learning." Although GMU's official statement is that the university is "very comfortable with it," a sophomore who helps with recruiting thinks

"It's really annoying," said Bollinger, who works as an ambassador for the admissions office. "The game was on TV. Everyone was there. All eyes were on us. And we do something like this? It's just stupid."

When I read this story I did not know what to think. On the one hand, this is clearly a no-skin-off-my nose situation; who cares who the homecoming queen of George Mason University is? Why should there be any controversy? And besides, we live in a country where people are trying to keep gay men and women from getting married to the person they love, so it's refreshing to see what looks like very public acceptance of one gay man's lifestyle.

On the other hand, I felt bad that a benign tradition was being subverted in some sense. Wikipedia describes homecoming as a tradition that is "celebrated" by bringing together alumni and others for banquets, a football game, and a ceremony where two students who have "gone above and beyond the call of duty to contribute to their school" are crowned Homecoming King and Queen. Crowning a man homecoming queen as a "joke" seems to thwart what many people expect and enjoy about homecoming celebrations. When Ryan Allen entered the competition, he did not intend to be judged by the same standards as the other two contestants. That is, he was not trying to show school spirit, or to demonstrate that he was a good student, or even that he was the prettiest contestant. He hoped to win despite those standards; he wanted those standards to be disregarded. Put another way -- there may not have been any official rule barring a drag queen from participating in George Mason University's homecoming pageant, but it does seem that when Ryan Allen entered the pageant, he broke the spirit, if not the letter, of the "law."

Then I remembered what Ayn Rand said about humor:

Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at. The classic example: you see a very snooty, very well dressed dowager walking down the street, and then she slips on a banana peel . . . . What's funny about it? It's the contrast of the woman's pretensions to reality. She acted very grand, but reality undercut it with a plain banana peel. That's the denial of the metaphysical validity or importance of the pretensions of that woman. Therefore, humor is a destructive element--which is quite all right, but its value and its morality depend on what it is that you are laughing at. If what you are laughing at is the evil in the world (provided that you take it seriously, but occasionally you permit yourself to laugh at it), that's fine. [To] laugh at that which is good, at heroes, at values, and above all at yourself [is] monstrous . . . .

I wonder: if Ryan Allen entered the pageant as a "joke," what did he hope people would laugh at? Is the Ms. Mason homecoming pageant the proper subject of a joke? Is there something evil about it, such that it is good to deny its "metaphysical importance?" So far as I am aware, it was never any part of the GMU homecoming tradition to disparage homosexuals, such that the pageant should be considered evil for contributing to prejudice against gay men. If I'm invited to ridicule the pageant as a result of this, am I contributing to the destruction of something evil, or of a value?

Perhaps in the end, what people will take away from this episode (to the extent anyone notices) is that the-times-they-are-a-changin' -- in a good way. But that will only be in contradiction of Ryan Allen's original intent, which was to make the pageant the subject of a joke. Which means -- to destroy the pageant.

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is in the eye of the beholder. From where I sit this doesn't look like a harmless joke. It looks like a spiteful prank.

Read more...

Philosophical Gourmet Report

The Philosophical Gourmet Report was just updated for 2009. It's the ranking of graduate programs in philosophy. I'm delighted to see that University of Colorado at Boulder has risen to #26.

Toward the end of my coursework in 2004/2005, our department was in shambles. About half the faculty had left for greener pastures, and even the chairman was on his way to Oxford. The remaining faculty was worried. We graduate students were in something of a panic. If the department tanked, we faced an unpleasant choice of (1) completing the much-disvalued Ph.D at Boulder, then facing less-than-stellar job prospects or (2) starting over (or nearly so) at a different Ph.D program. Almost all of us decided to stay, based on some reasonable assurances that the department would be rebuilt.

From what I understand, the primary difficulty with rebuilding the department was foot-dragging from the administration. The university uses the salaries of vacant faculty positions for other programs, so they wanted to keep our hiring to a snail's pace.

Happily, Bob Pasnau took over as chair. By working some kind of medieval magic on the university administration, plus making some very clever hires, he managed to build our department back up to nearly full strength. Then -- two years ago, I think -- David Boonin took over as chair. He continued to build the department, with excellent results. We're now quite full, as far as I understand.

Overall, the department is better than it was in 2002 when I entered -- not just in terms of its rank, but also in its overall atmosphere.

Hooray!

Note: If you wish to say something unpleasant about my department -- and thereby disrespect me and make an ass of yourself -- you are most emphatically not welcome to do so in these comments.

Read more...

Your Nest Egg on the Government Bailout

Amanda Teresi is an activist for free markets and limited government here in Colorado. She runs Liberty on the Rocks, for example. I met her through the Leadership Program of the Rockies (which I'm really enjoying) -- and I think very highly of her. She recently made this very clever and memorable video of "your nest egg on the government bailout":



I'd love to see more Objectivists being so creative and memorable in their activism -- in conjunction with the necessary economic and moral arguments, of course.

Read more...

Atlas Society Death Watch

Here's another milestone in slow death of the floundering pseudo-Objectivist group known most recently as "The Atlas Society": they're closing down their bookstore.

Once again, I'm pleased. For nearly 20 years, David Kelley and his followers have distorted Objectivism, hampered its spread, and maligned Ayn Rand and other Objectivists. (Yes, it has been that long: David Kelley's break with Objectivism occurred in March 1989 with "A Question of Sanction.") It's about time that came to an end.

Read more...

Your Evolution Dollars At Work: Chicken Head Tracking!

In honor of Darwin's 200th birthday, here's a little evolutionary coolness to make you smile -- and want to go play with a chicken!



Seriously, this is an awesome set of adaptations; just think of the myriad feedback mechanisms at work! Plus, it made me smile... and now I want to go play with a chicken.

Read more...

Wednesday Open Thread #37

Here's yet another 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...

Atlas Selling Like Hotcakes

Here's some very good news from the Ayn Rand Center:

Sales of "Atlas Shrugged" Soar in the Face of Economic Crisis

Washington, D.C., February 23, 2009--Sales of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" have almost tripled over the first seven weeks of this year compared with sales for the same period in 2008. This continues a strong trend after bookstore sales reached an all-time annual high in 2008 of about 200,000 copies sold.

"Americans are flocking to buy and read 'Atlas Shrugged' because there are uncanny similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day" said Yaron Brook, Executive Director at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. "Americans are rightfully concerned about the economic crisis and government's increasing intervention and attempts to control the economy. Ayn Rand understood and identified the deeper causes of the crisis we're facing, and she offered, in 'Atlas Shrugged,' a principled and practical solution consistent with American values."

Yeah!

Read more...

Hsieh OpEd in Washington Examiner

The February 23, 2009 Washington Examiner published my latest OpEd entitled, "America Doesn't Need a Health Care Czar". Here is the intro:

America doesn't need a 'health care czar'

By Paul Hsieh, MD, OpEd Contributor - 2/23/09

KEY DATA: Free market health reforms could reduce health insurance costs by over 50%.

TAKE HOME: President Barack Obama's plans for a "health czar" would represent an unprecedented and dangerous intrusion of government into the practice of American medicine.

Former senator Tom Daschle's withdrawal as President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services has left the White House administration scrambling to find a new "health czar" to implement their goal of government-run "universal health care."

But while the primary focus had been on Daschle's tax problems, Americans should also ask a more fundamental question: Why do we need a health czar in the first place?...

Read the rest here.

As usual, feel free to leave comments on the article website, as well as to forward it to friends, family, co-workers, elected officials, etc.

Update: The OpEd has started a vigorous discussion at LittleGreenFootballs!

Read more...

Two Hsieh LTEs in Rocky Mountain News

The Rocky Mountain News has published two (!) of my LTEs on consecutive days.

On February 18, 2009, they printed this letter opposing the latest proposal for "single payer" health care in Colorado:

Single-payer health care has failed in every other country
Paul Hsieh, Sedalia

Response to your story, "Dems' bill shoots for universal health care" from 2/5/2009 by Ed Sealover.

Single-payer health care has failed in every other country that has tried it. Canada controls health costs by forcing patients to wait months for MRI scans and cardiac surgeries that Americans can get in a few days.

Single-payer advocates mistakenly claim that health care is a "right".

Health care is a *need*, not a right. Rights are freedoms of action (such as the right to free speech), not automatic claims on goods and services that must be produced by another.

Instead of single-payer health care, America needs free-market reforms, such as allowing patients to purchase insurance across state lines and use health savings accounts for routine expenses. Insurers should be allowed to sell inexpensive, catastrophic-only policies to cover rare but expensive events.

Such reforms could reduce costs and make insurance available to millions who cannot currently afford it, while respecting individual rights.

On February 19, 2009, they printed this letter on the Obama Administration's expanded welfare state programs:

Heads they win, tails we lose
Dr. Paul Hsieh, Sedalia

When the economy is bad, welfare statists say, "We must expand government programs because everyone is hurting." When the economy is good, they say, "We must expand them because we can finally afford it."

If I didn't know better, I'd think that they wanted to increase people's dependency on government programs regardless of the reason.

Read more...

Get the Numbers Right

I'm highly amused by this craigslist advertisement:

Book editor with knowledge of Objectivism regarding Philosophy, Psychology, Politics and Economics. Objectivism is the philosophy created by Ayn Rand who wrote, "Capitalism the unknown ideal", "Anthem", "Fountainhead", and "Atlas Shrugged." I have completed a book that is 12 Chapters in 510 pages or 150,218 words. The book discusses moral and evil behavior using 12 Moral Laws and 12 Evil Laws with 38 Moral Principles and 38 Evil Principles. Please send resume of books previously edited and published.

Clearly, the numbers are very important! Good laws and principles must exactly equal the evil laws and principles!

Update: Here's the web site for the book. It's even better (i.e. worse) than I imagined!

Read more...

Joss Wedon's Dollhouse

Joss Whedon really got my attention with his wonderful but sadly shortlived TV series Firefly and its related movie Serenity. So when I found the premiere episode of his Dollhouse series on Hulu last night, I was eager to check it out.



Quick review: I'm intrigued. Excellent production, solid acting, short skirts. And most important, a sci-fi premise that will make you think about the nature of personal identity. What if you could copy aspects of people from a library of personas to create an amalgam in a host, tailored for some particular application? Need someone who flies helicopters and has a doctorate in neurobiology? Coming right up -- but you'd better hope that the amalgam is stable and that none of the donors' psychological quirks mess things up before the mission is completed and the host is wiped clean again.

Which brings us to the hosts, the agents used in these missions. What would be their motivation for undertaking such a lifestyle? Who would volunteer to become a vessel forever filled and emptied by someone else? Sure, whatever horrible memories they've accumulated in life would be erased, which sounds appealing. And they would get to be and do an amazing variety of things -- presumably bringing about happiness and justice and so on. That's pretty cool, too.

But who are you, if not the sum of your choices and actions and experiences? And what is any of it worth to you if you have no knowledge of what "you" did?

Read more...

Recap #32

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

• Monday, February 16, 2009: Muslim Man Beheads His Wife in Buffalo by Diana Hsieh
  
• Wednesday, February 18, 2009: Jesus On the Dole by Ari
  
• Thursday, February 19, 2009: Light Posting Schedule by Diana Hsieh
  

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

• Monday, February 16, 2009: Knope in Wall Street Journal by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Tuesday, February 17, 2009: Esmail: "'Too Old' for Hip Surgery" by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Wednesday, February 18, 2009: Where Does Your State Rank? by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Thursday, February 19, 2009: "Comparative Effectiveness": The Path to Rationing by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Friday, February 20, 2009: Hsieh LTE in Rocky Mountain News by Paul Hsieh, MD
  

(Nothing new was posted on FA/RM, the blog of Free Agriculture - Restore Markets this week.)

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #37

Here's yet another 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...

Glenn Beck on Worst-Case Scenarios

The February 20, 2009 edition of the Glenn Beck television show featured a chilling discussion of some worst-case economic and political scenarios facing the US in the next 5 years. Beck was always careful to point out that he and his guests weren't claiming that these scenarios would happen, but rather that they could happen (i.e., they were within the realm of possibility), and that thinking about them was an important part of working to prevent them from occurring.

Dr. Onkar Ghate of the ARI appeared to discuss possible restrictions of free speech if we started heading towards dictatorship and some of the warning signs we should look for. You can watch his segment here:



One of the other topics discussed in detail was the possibility of a large-scale financial meltdown on the order of the Great Depression (if not worse). Given the US government will dig itself into unprecedented levels of debt due to the various bailout programs, it may start trying to print money (i.e., inflate the currency) as a way to "solve" the problem:




Of course, this won't work. And Beck's guests pointed out that this unhappy scenario has already played out in other countries in the past, such as Argentina during the 1990s.

(One of the guests was Stephen Moore, the Wall Street Journal financial writer who also cited Ayn Rand in his widely read recent OpEd, "'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years".)

Although I still believe that an Argentina-style financial meltdown probably won't occur in the US, I also believe that there is a small but nonzero chance that it might.

Hence, I'd like to point readers towards this very interesting essay by an Argentinian who lived through that country's crisis. The author dispels some of the extreme right-wing survivalist myths about such scenarios. More importantly, he also discusses the very real threats and challenges that ordinary people have to deal with in such circumstances, and he gives some worthwhile advice and recommendations on how best to cope.

Much of his advice would be applicable to any number of natural or man-made crises. Anyone who values his or her life might want to make it a point to cultivate the mental and physical tools necessary to survive such circumstances.

Again, I don't think this is the most likely future for the US. And I intend to concentrate my main effort in the battle of ideas, precisely to help prevent this from happening. But just as I think it's prudent to keep a fire extinguisher in one's kitchen or a first-aid kit in one's car as protection against bad events, I also think it would be prudent for Americans to plan for significant economic and political turbulence in the near future. Many of these actions are things most intelligent people would want to do anyways, such as minimizing/eliminating debt, keeping at least 6 months of living expenses in the bank, staying physically healthy, etc.

The recent history of Argentina offers Americans some important lessons. Whether we learn from them is up to us.

(Disclaimer: This is the first episode of the Glenn Beck show that I've ever watched. He's pretty good on some concrete points of politics and economics. But he also fell into the typical conservative error of stating that rights come from God, rather than being a consequence of our nature. But I'm hoping that there will be future opportunities for Objectivists to present the correct philosophic justification of individual rights on shows like his.)

Read more...

Food Link-O-Rama

Dumb scare-mongering headline of the day, supported by a total non-story: How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer.

Dr. Eades on the ethics of eating animals: A better way to die? As I said in a comment I posted, I'd really like to investigate this issue more. I trust Dr. Eades reports, but they're rather old. Today's accounts are too often driven by some kind of partisan agenda. So I'd like to know what might have changed for better or worse over the last 30 years. Undoubtedly, federal regulations and subsidies have exerted a major influence over farming in that time -- e.g. subsidizing corn-feeding of livestock and the clean up of large confinement operations, pushing small farmers out of business by eating up their profits with burdensome regulations, forcing the closure of a large number of slaughterhouses by federal certification requirements, and so on. I want facts -- and for that, I'll likely have investigate for myself.

Stephan of the always-interesting Whole Health Source analyzes a recent study showing some rapid health improvements from eating a "paleo" diet: Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part III. The study was small, and the diet wasn't fully paleo. But the results were very suggestive:

Participants, on average, saw large improvements in nearly every meaningful measure of health in just 10 days on the "paleolithic" diet. Remember, these people were supposedly healthy to begin with. Total cholesterol and LDL dropped, if you care about that. Triglycerides decreased by 35%. Fasting insulin plummeted by 68%. HOMA-IR, a measure of insulin resistance, decreased by 72%. Blood pressure decreased and blood vessel distensibility (a measure of vessel elasticity) increased. It's interesting to note that measures of glucose metabolism improved dramatically despite no change in carbohydrate intake. Some of these results were statistically significant, but not all of them. However, the authors note that:

In all these measured variables, either eight or all nine participants had identical directional responses when switched to paleolithic type diet, that is, near consistently improved status of circulatory, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism/physiology.

Translation: everyone improved. That's a very meaningful point, because even if the average improves, in many studies a certain percentage of people get worse. This study adds to the evidence that no matter what your gender or genetic background, a diet roughly consistent with our evolutionary past can bring major health benefits. Here's another way to say it: ditching certain modern foods can be immensely beneficial to health, even in people who already appear healthy. This is true regardless of whether or not one loses weight.

The lesson: don't suppose that a change in your diet won't do your body good just because you're not fat -- or not yet fat. Stephan has some more interesting comments; I recommend reading his whole post.

Cheeseslave on How to Make Lobster Stock. Yummy!

Read more...

Making a Virtue of Selfishness?

The Center for Values and Social Policy in the Philosophy Department of the University of Colorado at Boulder is pleased to announce a "Think!" debate on Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics.

• What: Debate on "Making a Virtue of Selfishness? A Debate about Ayn Rand's Ethics"
  
  
• Who: Dr. Onkar Ghate (Ayn Rand Institute) and Prof. Michael Huemer (CU Boulder, Philosophy)
  
  
• When: Monday, March 2nd, 7:30 - 9:00 pm
  
  
• Where: Old Main Chapel, CU Boulder (Campus Map)

About the debate:

Dr. Onkar Ghate will argue: "Ayn Rand challenges the idea, dominant in the West since Christianity, that morality consists of commandments. Even though this conception of morality has often been secularized, its essence has remained: the source of morality is something external to the self, to which the self owes obedience. In sharp contrast, Rand argues that the nature and purpose of morality is to teach one how to achieve one's self-interest."

Dr. Ghate is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute where he teaches at the Institute's Objectivist Academic Center. He lectures on philosophy and Objectivism throughout North America. Dr. Ghate received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Calgary.

Dr. Michael Huemer will argue: "Ayn Rand champions an excessively egoistic ethic, one in which individuals must place themselves before everyone and everything else. This ethic can lead one to hurt, exploit, or simply ignore the needs of others, when it suits one's own interests to do so. Rand's ethic of selfishness clashes with the moral sense of philosophers, spiritual leaders, and ordinary people the world over. These people are not all wrong -- Ayn Rand is wrong."

Dr. Huemer is an associate professor of philosophy at CU Boulder. He has written on such topics as philosophical skepticism, the problem of induction, ethical intuitionism, free will, and deontological ethics. Dr. Huemer received his doctorate in philosophy from Rutgers University in 1998.

All "Think!" events are free and intended for the public. For more information, please visit the "Think!" web page.

For further information on the series, please contact Dr. Alastair Norcross at Alastair.Norcross(at)Colorado.edu. For announcements of upcoming "Think!" events, e-mail Diana Hsieh at Diana.Hsieh@colorado.edu with that request.

Upcoming "Think!" Events:

• Tuesday, April 14th: Prof. Ajume Wingo, "Politics as an Alternative to Violence," 7:30 - 9:00 pm, Old Main Chapel

"Think!" lectures are sponsored by the Center for Values and Social Policy in the Philosophy Department of the University of Colorado at Boulder and funded through the generosity of The Collins Foundation.

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

Nick Provenzo has the latest Objectivist Roundup. It's the collection of the best posts of the week from Objectivist bloggers. Go check it out!

Read more...

The Law on E-mail

While I'm being crabby, I might as well lay down the following law regarding e-mail. I say this for the sake of clarifying what I need to do, as well as to warn you.

Due to the demands of my dissertation, until further notice, I'm not replying to e-mail unless necessary. I don't have the time or energy to reply to any philosophic or otherwise optional inquiries. And I'm not even going to read lengthy e-mails absent some compelling reason to do so.

Also, don't send me anything with the expectation that I'll reply at my leisure. First, that's an unkind burden on me. Second, I won't reply later. My GTD policy of "inbox zero" remains in full effect: I clear out my inbox twice per day, and all e-mail is either (a) archived, (b) deleted, (c) replied-to and then archived, or (d) when absolutely unavoidable, transformed into a future task.

You're welcome to send me interesting material for blogging, but please be judicious, as I don't have much time for optional reading right now. If you find something particularly interesting, please quote some relevant portion, provide the link, and say something interesting about it. Then I'll likely put it in my "to blog" folder in the hopes of blogging it later. (Or, better yet, just post all of that in one of the open threads.) If you don't do that, it'll likely get filed away, never to be considered again. Either way, you're unlikely to receive a reply.

With regard to the NoodleFood comments, I hope to refrain from posting except as absolutely necessary. You are welcome to scold me if I do comment at other times. Please do not solicit my comments on any topic; that's just mean. Also, I will be adding another open thread on Wednesdays, so you are welcome to discuss whatever you please amongst yourselves.

I promise that I will be more pleasant and sociable at some point in the future. Just not now -- not until the dissertation is done and defended.

Read more...

FYI on Announcements

I'm willing to post announcements of any significant event -- such as a lecture or conference -- that is likely to be of interest to the bulk of my readers, i.e. Objectivists, fans of Ayn Rand, advocates of free markets, and the like.

However, please don't just ask me to announce the thing in question. Instead, send me the actual text of an announcement that I can simply quote in my blog post, preferably with HTML links already properly formatted. (Please, no HTML e-mail: use plain text.) That will make me love you for your thoughtfulness and consideration of my time. It will also ensure that your announcement is posted in a timely fashion, rather than languishing in my "to blog" folder.

Basically, I'm more than happy to help, but please don't make such help a burden to me. This principle applies whether I'm crushed by dissertation work or not: I don't want to have to do your work for you in order to do you a favor.

(Yeah, I'm feeling crabby. Get over it.)

Read more...

X-Ray Answer

The patient's heart has been removed!

He is a heart transplant patient about to receive his new heart, and of course the surgeons had to remove his old failing heart first. The film was taken after his native heart had been removed but before the transplanted new heart was placed. Again, here is the abnormal film and a comparison normal film.

Abnormal:



Normal:



When I've shown the abnormal film to medical students, they usually know that something is amiss, but they can't quite put their finger on what's wrong.

Many med students learning introductory radiology find it much harder to recognize the absence of a normal structure than to recognize the presence of an abnormal structure. Or as one of my former professors used to put it, "The hardest thing to see is something that isn't there."

This principle is not unique to medicine, of course. For instance, the "dog that didn't bark" (when it should have) was the key to a Sherlock Holmes mystery story.

And part of radiology residency training is to develop the appropriate mental checklists so that when one analyzing any radiology exam (ranging from a chest x-ray to a brain MRI scan), one is methodically looking both for "things that should be here but aren't" as well as "things that shouldn't be there but are".

A few comments on some secondary findings:

The lungs are "dirtier" than usual (i.e., with more white), because of fluid build-up from his prior congestive heart failure. There are also various life-support lines and tubes that project over different portions of his chest. The dark vertical stripe in the midline is the incision used to remove the heart.

Read more...

Light Posting Schedule

Due to the demands of my dissertation, teaching, and other non-negotiable obligations, NoodleFood will be on a reduced schedule for the next month or so. I'll only be posting one post per day -- if I can manage that.

No, this isn't today's post. It's not that bad yet.

Read more...

Summer Conference on Capitalism

The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism is taking applications for its annual three-day summer conference for undergraduates on "Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism." Here's the general description of this conference:

Students attend lectures, participate in small group discussions, and have free time to discuss and debate the ideas presented in the formal sessions. Throughout the three days of sessions, students have ample opportunity to speak one-on-one with faculty and ask them questions in a more informal setting. The summer conferences, held on the campus of Clemson University, provide a unique opportunity for students to study with leading professors from around the country, to meet top students from around the world, and to study capitalism in a challenging, engaging environment.

And here's the description of the 2009 conference:

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the Moral Foundations of Capitalism

What is the moral basis for the free market?

How do individual rights function in a capitalist society?

What does the history of capitalism teach us about its moral basis?

How is Ayn Rand's view of capitalism unique?

The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism is pleased to accept applications for its third annual summer conference for college students. We invite you to join us for an exciting three-day program of lectures, seminars, and discussions. Students will arrive May 28 and depart on June 1, 2009, with the main event running from May 29-31.

Exciting Programs

Students will participate in an intensive and exciting program exploring the moral foundations of capitalism and Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. Students will attend lectures, participate in small- group seminar-style discussions, and question and answer sessions. Outside of class, students can relax and socialize on Clemson's campus. Evening activities will include a barbecue dinner, a meet and greet with the faculty, and a career advice discussion.

Full Scholarships Available

The Clemson Institute will be accepting qualified undergraduate students to participate in the summer program on full scholarships. All housing and meals will be provided on the campus of Clemson University. Attending students are eligible for up to $500 for travel. Reading materials will be provided.

Application Information

To apply to the Clemson Institute's Summer Conference, visit our website and fill out the application form. Return it by March 5, 2009 to edan@clemson.edu or via postal mail at:

Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism
Summer Conference
343 Sirrine Hall -- Box 341310
Clemson, SC 29634-1310

Faculty

The Clemson Institute has assembled a faculty of leading scholars and teachers who study the moral foundations of capitalism, specializing in fields ranging from history and literature to philosophy, political science, and economics. Our faculty join students for meals and interact with them outside of class for informal discussions and questions.

Andrew Bernstein, Ph.D., Visiting Professor of Philosophy, Marist College

Richard Ebeling, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, American Institute for Economic Research

Eric Daniels, Ph.D., Research Assistant Professor, Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism

Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, The Ayn Rand Institute

C. Bradley Thompson, Ph.D., Executive Director, Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, Clemson University

You can find the application form -- and more details about the conference -- on this web page. I highly recommend this conference!

Read more...

Yaron Brook on the Glenn Beck Show

The Ayn Rand Center says:

Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, is scheduled to appear on the "Glenn Beck Program" on Fox News today, Tuesday, February 17, 2009, at 2 p.m., Pacific time. Dr. Brook will discuss the growth of the government's power and its crushing effects on the U.S. economy.

Read more...

Today's X-Ray

Today's x-ray is from a 55-year old man. The film was taken in the operating room ("OR 3"). Notice anything interesting?



(Answer tomorrow.)

Read more...

A Comment on the FIRM Blog

I'm totally floored by this recent comment to We Stand FIRM. It was posted in response to an op-ed debunking the myth of administrative savings under "single payer" systems of government heath care. Read it and weep:

the Canadian healthcare system is not the best in the world and certainly not perfect. however it is still rated superior to the system (or lack of a system) we have here in the US by the WHO. call it "socialist medicine" if you like, but like chairmen deng once said, "no matter it's a white cat or a black cat, as long as it can catch mice, it's a good cat." lol.

the Canadian system is only at the 30th place in world ranking. how about looking at the other 29 better models? again, no single system in this world is absolutely perfect, but instead of picking faults (and i'm sure the canadians are going to have a grand time picking the faults of the american system, too), how about learning from their pros and cons and try to find the best system that works uniquely for the US? how about stop advertising your own personal beliefs and incentives, stop quoting our funding fathers who, though undoubtedly very wise in their time, could not possibly have foreseen the social condition and issues we are facing at present day? how about instead of dismissing new ideas regardless good or bad, try to focus on improving the efficiency of the government and fighting bureacracy, which is the primary reason why the many government programs didn't work, not the initiative itself?

the theory that lasses-faire or free market mechanism will improve the US healthcare system (or the lack of a system) without external (government) interference - has this been proven anywhere by any means? a lot of americans focus so much on individual rights and benefits, which is based solely on their "beliefs" without any scientific or socioeconomic justification. they have very little regard to the well-being of the group, the society and the nation as a whole. and they think by defending the (implied) meaning of the constitution, they're displaying such remarkable patiotism. honestly, i do not care what you believe, or what you think it right and morally acceptable. in fact, what i "believe" in completely irrelevant, too. what we should try to achieve, as a whole, is commonwealth and stability of our society, which will in turn benefit each and every individual within. what do you think is the priority of the government: defending YOUR personal ideals and beliefs, which is a lot of times the source of misinformaiton, conflicts, and chaos, or promoting the well-being of the society?

It would simply take too much time to comment on all that is wrong with that, so I invite you to pick your favorite bit of inanity to fisk in the comments.

Read more...

Blogroll Update

I'll be updating my blogroll sometime in the next few days, so if your blog is not on it but you'd like it to be, please post a comment with the URL and title below. Thanks! (Please don't e-mail me; I'd like the list of blog to add to be gathered in one place.)

Read more...

Two Jokes

I'm too busy with work to blog anything substantial today, so here are two good jokes pertaining to religion instead. First:

Jack and Max are walking from religious service. Jack wonders whether it would be all right to smoke while praying.

Max replies, "Why don't you ask the priest?"

So Jack goes up to the priest and asks, "Father, may I smoke while I pray?"

The priest replies, "No, my son, you may not! That's utter disrespect to our religion."

Jack goes back to his friend and tells him what the good priest told him.

Max says, "I'm not surprised. You asked the wrong question. Let me try."

And so Max goes up to the priest and asks, "Father, may I pray while I smoke?"

To which the priest eagerly replies, "By all means, my son. By all means. You can always pray whenever you want to."

Not too get too technical, but that's actually a great example of the fascinating psychological effect of "framing."

Second:

The priest was walking down the street looking sad.

"What happened?" asked a parishioner.

"I am afraid someone from the parish stole my umbrella."

"Here's what you do. Next sermon talk about the Ten Commandments and look around when you quote 'Thou shall not steal' and see who bows his head in shame."

Next week the priest walks happily down the avenue, twirling his umbrella.

The smart parishioner said, "I see my advice worked."

"Not exactly," said the priest. "When I reached 'Thou shall not commit adultery,' I remembered where I forgot it."

Ouch! Amazing how memory works!

Read more...

Recap #31

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

• Monday, February 9, 2009: School Prayer Stupidity by Greg Perkins
  
• Wednesday, February 11, 2009: A Terry Schiavo Case in Italy by Gina Liggett
  
• Friday, February 13, 2009: Huckabee: Stimulus Is Anti-Religious by Diana Hsieh
  

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

• Monday, February 9, 2009: Coverage vs. Care in Japan by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Tuesday, February 10, 2009: Government Interference With Insurance Markets by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Wednesday, February 11, 2009: McCaughey on Government Controlled Medicine by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Thursday, February 12, 2009: My PajamasMedia OpEd on Cass Sunstein by Paul Hsieh
  
• Friday, February 13, 2009: Concierge Physicians Vs. Maryland - Update by Paul Hsieh, MD
  

This week on FA/RM, the blog of Free Agriculture - Restore Markets:

• Wednesday, February 11, 2009: Low Carb Food Stamp Diet a Success by Monica
  

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #36

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...

Dinner: Burgers and Cauliflower

When Paul and I sat down to dinner tonight, I considered taking a picture of my uber-full plate, so that I could post it with this write-up. (It did look quite marvelous.) However, I was too impatient to eat it. Hence, you'll have to make do this description. Here's the food we split:

• one pound grass-fed ground beef patties, cooked medium
  
• two strips of uncured bacon
  
• one head of steamed orange cauliflower, with raw butter
  
• one and a half cups of button mushrooms sautéed in bacon and beef fat
  
• two small glasses of raw milk

The meal took up all of our plates. And now we're both pretty darn full. Happily, it took only about 20 minutes to prepare from start to finish. Here's what I did:

• Cook the bacon on medium in a stainless steel pan -- not non-stick. While that's cooking, wash and chop the mushrooms. When the bacon is mostly cooked, drain off most of the bacon grease. (Save it in a mason jar for future cooking!) Add the mushrooms to the pan. Cook for about five minutes, stirring occasionally. (They'll be dry for a while, but then they'll release their juices.)
  
  
• Meanwhile, bring water to a boil in a saucepan for steaming the cauliflower. Wash and chop the orange cauliflower into medium-sized florets. Add to the steamer, cover, and cook for ten to fifteen minutes, or until tender when tested with a knife. Later, when the burgers are done, transfer the cauliflower to the plate. Dot with butter, add salt and pepper.
  
  
• Meanwhile, salt and pepper the ground beef, then shape it into two oblong hamburgers. Remove the mushrooms and bacon from the pan into a bowl. Add a small dollop of bacon grease back to the pan, then hamburger patties. (Add the bacon back to the side of the pan to finish cooking it, if necessary, then transfer it to the plates when done.) Cook the burgers on the first side for six minutes, flip them, then cook for another six minutes. After flipping the burgers, add the partly-cooked mushrooms back to the pan. Stir them around the burgers occasionally. When done, transfer the burgers to the plates. Cook the mushrooms in the pan for another minute or so, then transfer them to the plate.
  
  
• Meanwhile, instruct husband to set the table. He'll pour the glasses of milk too. (Best of all, he cleans up all the dishes after the meal is consumed!)
  
  
• Eat, eat, and eat!

If I wasn't so familiar with cooking those foods, I don't think I could have managed to do quite so much all at once. But practice makes perfect -- and easy!

Read more...

Planche Training

Wow, I never knew that such suspended pushups were possible to man:

Read more...

A Big Nod to Fat Head!

Fat Head (movie website) is a brand new documentary by Tom Naughton that started out as a hilarious and informative sendup of the Super Size Me documentary from a few years back. The resulting film is that, plus a lot more -- it’s also a hilarious and informative sendup of the nutritional industry’s disastrous turn of the last several decades!

Now, I’m the sort of guy who will cheerfully devour books like Gary Taubes’ meticulous and astonishing Good Calories, Bad Calories, but that is simply too much of a long, technical grind for most folks (he was really addressing doctors and professionals in the nutrition industry). I can’t give that to my parents, for example. In contrast, this movie is a wonderful resource I can pass on to introduce others to what I’ve learned from people like Taubes.

Naughton features many of the big names we’ve come to recognize in this area, like the Drs. Eades, and Fallon and Enig from the Weston A. Price Foundation. And he consulted with people like Taubes -- so even when he needs to simplify something, the result is nonetheless strong. Naughton cleverly, effectively, and humorously addresses topics such as:

• The many distortions and errors of Supersize Me.
• The “lipid hypothesis”, where it came from, why it’s complete crap, and what damage it’s done.
• Metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and the mechanisms of energy storage and use in our bodies -- what the science actually says about how people get fat.
• Inflammation and heart disease, and how they really relate to cholesterol.
• How activists and special interests and their coercive efforts via government intervention are responsible for so much dietary mischief that's hurting us.

And the look on his doctor's face after seeing the results of a month of thoroughly flouting the standard advice of the nutrition industry was priceless!

While there is of course much more to say than can be packed into a film like this, Fat Head just became the first resource I’ll share with family and friends on this front -- highly recommended!

Read more...

Food Link-O-Rama

15 Tips for Cooking Real Food for Beginngers from CheeseSlave. (I love that name!) I haven't yet tried coconut flour, as I just haven't done much baking in the last six months. However, I've nearly run out of the slew of mason jars I bought this fall with all the homemade stock I've been preparing and freezing lately.

What Is Attractive? by Fitness Fail. Or: Why look like a skin-and-bones model when you can look like a CrossFit girl? The linked video of the women competitors from the 2008 CrossFit Games is awesome!

Beware your olive oil. According to this fascinating New Yorker article, it's often adulterated with cheap, rancid vegetable oils for the sake of a quick buck. I'm not sure whether the fridge test discussed by CheeseSlave is reliable. Whole Foods says not -- and that they rigorously test their store-label brands for purity. Another alternative is to choose a boutique source like Bariani or Adam's Ranch.

Personally, I don't use much olive oil. I'm not much of a salad eater, so I don't use it for to make dressing. (And yes, I would make my own, as everything store-bought consists largely of industrial vegetable oil.) I use animal fats or coconut oil for cooking. I very much like the flavor they add to foods -- and they're more stable at high heats. From what I've read, olive oil ought not be used for high heat cooking. (For more on fats, see this post from Life Spotlight and this detailed article from the Weston A. Price Foundation.)

Yes, I do plan to make the bacon explosion at some point.

Canadian farmers should have the right to sell raw milk to their willing customers! RealMilk.com has a lengthy background article on the Michael Schmidt, the farmer brought up on charges for selling raw milk via a cowshare program. You can read his testimony at his trial. I'm not sure about the current status of his case -- perhaps it's still pending?

Are you looking for a source of raw milk? Check out these tips for evaluating the farm.

Read more...

Moose Knuckle

Some weeks ago, I found that I needed a word for the male version of camel toe. (Sadly, Al Michaels was seriously afflicted on Sunday Night Football at the time.) And lo and behold, a few days later, I found that the proper term is "moose knuckle."

Just thought you might need to know that too, just in case you need to warn some poor man against it.

Read more...

X-Ray Answer

This woman has a completely collapsed left lung. That's why the left chest cavity is completely black. In contrast, the still-normal right lung shows the fine branching blood vessels emanating from the heart.



The white glob of tissue adjacent to the left side of her heart is her collapsed left lung plastered up against the left-sided heart border.

Here is a normal chest x-ray for comparison:



This is a severe case of spontaneous pneumothorax, much more severe than this one from three months ago.

The last I had heard, she was appropriately treated and doing well.

The slight difference in the height of the two sides of her diaphragm are within normal variation.

The apparent scoliosis of the spine is not real. Instead, I think folks are looking at the air-filled trachea (windpipe) which takes a slight normal curve to the right as it moves past the aorta. The trachea is slightly darker vertical stripe which then branches into the two separate "mainstem bronchi" -- one for each lung.

Read more...

1 in 7 Americans Functionally Illiterate

Wow:

About 14 percent of U.S. adults won't be reading this article. Well, okay, most people won't read it, given all the words that are published these days to help us understand and navigate the increasingly complex world.

But about 1 in 7 can't read it. They're illiterate.

Statistics released by the U.S. Education Department this week show that some 32 million U.S. adults lack basic prose literacy skill. That means they can't read a newspaper or the instruction on a bottle of pills.

I'm appalled, but I suppose that I shouldn't be entirely surprised. Earlier this semester, I discovered that none of my thirty students this semester at Colorado's best university know the meaning of the word "egregious." And on Wednesday, a student was seriously confused by a potential test question that used "former" and "latter." (I'm very, very glad she asked me!) My students should have been acquainted with that kind of language by reading classic literature, even if they didn't hear it from their parents. That's what an education is for. One cannot read Jane Austen -- as I am currently doing, yet again -- without learning the meaning of "former" and "latter"!

In teaching, I eschew technical philosophical terms unless I've introduced and defined them. Yet terms like "egregious," "former," and "latter" are part of my ordinary thinking, writing, and speaking. So I use such language in teaching; I don't consider it high-flown in the slightest. It should be comprehensible to any college student. Yet how many students are unprepared to hear it? Far more than I used to think, apparently.

I blame the government schools for this sorry state of affairs, but I also blame parents. Through many conversations, I've found that parents almost always support and defend their government schools, even while recognizing that the failure of the "public" education system. (Principled opponents of government schools are an exception, obviously.)

I'm sick of that: I see that it cannot be true, as 90% of my students are unprepared for college-level work. So I'm going to start being rather more pushy with parents in my criticism of government schools, I think. Their all-too-convenient delusions are suffocating the minds of their children. Even if parents have no other option -- and many don't, and I feel for them -- they ought to recognize that their beloved "public schools" are not equipping their children with the knowledge and skills required to live sensible, independent, and happy lives.

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

The latest Objectivist Roundup -- a collection of the best blogging by Objectivists of the past week -- has been posted on Titanic Deck Chairs. Go check it out!

Read more...

Today's X-Ray Case

Another walk-in case from our routine practice: 30-year old woman with chest pain and shortness of breath. (Click on image to see it full-size.)



As usual, her left side is on the image right (marked with the "L"). Her right side is on the image left.

Answer tomorrow.

Read more...

A Terry Schiavo Case in Italy

Remember in 2005 when then-President Bush rushed back to Washington to get the Republican-dominated Congress to intervene directly in the Terry Schiavo right-to-die case? Terry Schiavo had been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, alive only because she was receiving nutrition through a feeding tube. Her husband and legal guardian--who knew she would never want to live like that--fought Terry's staunchly Catholic family in the court system for years over her right to die in such a circumstance. A Florida state appeals court agreed with Terry's husband and allowed the feeding tube to be removed in spring of 2005.

Out of all legal options, the family went to the top of the political ladder, and got President Bush and his religious-right powerhouse in Congress to counteract that ruling. Congress passed, and Bush signed, emergency legislation, sending the case back to the federal court. But wisely, the federal court did not overrule the previous decision. The feeding tube was not reinserted, and Terry was allowed to die.

The case was a sickening display of not only the breach of the separation of powers as well as the separation of church and state, but also of how quickly and deeply one's personal life can be penetrated by a government. A federal appeals court judge in Atlanta quite eloquently admonished Congress and the White House for acting “in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers’ blueprint for the governance of a free people — our Constitution.”

Fast forward to 2009, and there is an eerily similar kind of family nightmare in Italy. A 37-year old woman, Eluana Englaro, has been in a coma since a car crash in 1992. Her father, who claims that her daughter would not want to live in such a vegetative state, has spent years petitioning the Italian court system to allow her to die. Finally, doctors were allowed to implement a medical protocol for withdrawing Eluana's artificial nutrition--that is, until Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, after consulting with the Vatican, issued an emergency decree stating nutrition cannot be withdrawn.

Magnifying the absurdity of the Italian government's and Vatican's interference in the private lives of these citizens is the Prime Minister's justification for his decree: physically at least, Eluana was "in the condition to have babies."

Allow me to elucidate. Irregardless of the comatose woman's inability to consent to anything, the Italian Prime Minister and the Vatican are in effect saying that it would be acceptable for someone to impregnate this woman, have her body incubate a fetus, then deliver it; but to allow her to die a natural and dignified death by withdrawing artificial nutrition would be immoral, despite what Eluana would have wanted.

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who pleaded with Berlusconi to not permit Eluana to die, told him "We have to stop this crime against humanity." (I must say, I find it ludicrous and ironic that the religious institution responsible for the horrific crimes of the medieval Crusades and the systematic enabling of pedophilia in the priesthood has the audacity to say anything about crimes against humanity.)

In these two right-to-die cases, Terry and Eluana were young when they suffered their irreversible brain damage and had not made their wishes explicitly known in writing. But those closest to them and legally responsible for making decisions on their behalf have a better idea than the government or the Church about whether or not they would want to linger for decades in an unconscious state.

Even more fundamentally important than the ethics of proxy medical decision-making is the right to die. I think this right is a corollary of Ayn Rand's concept of the right to life: "There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life."

In their quest to take away the right-to-die, the Vatican and America's Religious Right are basically taking away the right to life, claiming your life belongs to God, not to you. This religious view is the reason the Schiavo family fought Terry's right to die; this was the reason they took their case to a President who actively promulgated religious initiatives; and this is what the Italian father is fighting.

Your right to life includes your right to end your life according to your values. If you would not want to be kept alive for decades in a comatose state--and your proxy decision makers know that--then they have the ethical and legal obligation to carry out your wishes. And any governmental or church interference with that right is an immoral and egregious offense to the citizens of a society obligated to uphold their Constitutional rights.

Update: Eluana died Monday Feb 9 as legislators debated her case. The Italian government intends to push for an anti-right-to-die law.

Read more...

Yaron Brook on Product Safety

In this video, Yaron Brook answers a question on how to ensure product safety in capitalism via tort law. And he explains why the regulatory state undermines the incentives to make products safe found in a free market.



Exactly!

Read more...

My PajamasMedia OpEd on Cass Sunstein

The online political commentary website PajamasMedia.com has published my OpEd on Cass Sunstein, who is President Obama's new director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein is one of the leading advocates of the philosophy known as "libertarian paternalism".

Here is the opening of my piece:

Obama's Regulatory Chief Believes in Paternalistic Government
February 10, 2009 -- by Paul Hsieh

The old joke runs, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Most Americans are appropriately skeptical of such a claim, just as they are skeptical when told that they've won $10 million in a Nigerian lottery. But President Obama's selection of Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein to direct the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs threatens to turn this joke into grim reality.

Sunstein is most famous for his approach to government regulation known as "libertarian paternalism," detailed in his book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (co-authored with Richard Thaler).

The basic premise of libertarian paternalism is that the government should use its power to "nudge" people into acting in their best interest, while leaving them the choice to "opt out." If the government decides that saving money is good, it would automatically divert a percentage of your paycheck into a savings account in your name unless you explicitly declined. Supporters claim that this preserves freedom because government is only changing the default, while leaving individuals the final choice. It is merely a gentle "nudge," not a hard push.

However, nudging represents an assault on freedom, because it undermines man’s basic tool of survival -- his mind. By creating a default, libertarian paternalism in essence says, "Don't worry -- we'll do your thinking for you." Sunstein’s book explicitly compares Americans to a bunch of Homer Simpsons in need of such guidance. If Americans surrender their minds to the government, they become easy prey for demagogues and dictators...

Read the rest here.

Both Tara Smith and Eric Daniels have also written about Sunstein's philosophy in Fall 2008 issue of The Objective Standard. Tara mentions his in her article "The Menace of Pragmatism". Eric Daniels has a review of the Nudge book in the same issue.

Read more...

Mommy Chicken, Baby Kittens

Animals are strange -- often in darn cute ways:



(Via Monica of FA/RM.)

Read more...

Niles On Executive Wage Controls

Ray Niles has written a piece for Capitalism Magazine on President Obama's latest proposal to regulate the wages of executives in the financial sector: "As Wall Street Bonuses Go, So Goes the Liberty of All of Us".

If Americans don't oppose this now, we'll see a lot more of this in the future.

Read more...

Why I Love Aristotle, Reason #82721

Here's a delightful passage from the Nicomachean Ethics, Book 7, Chapter 6:

That incontinence [i.e. lack of self-control] in respect of anger is less disgraceful than that in respect of the appetites is what we will now proceed to see.

Anger seems to listen to argument to some extent, but to mishear it, as do hasty servants who run out before they have heard the whole of what one says, and then muddle the order, or as dogs bark if there is but a knock at the door, before looking to see if it is a friend; so anger by reason of the warmth and hastiness of its nature, though it hears, does not hear an order, and springs to take revenge. For argument or imagination informs us that we have been insulted or slighted, and anger, reasoning as it were that anything like this must be fought against, boils up straightway; while appetite, if argument or perception merely says that an object is pleasant, springs to the enjoyment of it. Therefore anger obeys the argument in a sense, but appetite does not. It is therefore more disgraceful; for the man who is incontinent in respect of anger is in a sense conquered by argument, while the other is conquered by appetite and not by argument.

Aristotle is correct to say that indulgence in unjustified anger requires some kind of rational judgment, whereas indulgence in mere appetites (i.e. bodily pleasures) does not. I'm not certain that the difference makes indulgence in anger less disgraceful than indulgence in appetites; I'm doubtful that such a comparison is sensible. (The argument above is not Aristotle's only argument for that conclusion, however. He offers quite a few in that chapter.)

Regardless of such concerns, what I love about this passage is his analogy to the hasty servant and the barking dog. That's just priceless -- and oh so much like Aristotle.

Read more...

Voices for Reason

The Ayn Rand Institute just launched a blog: Voices for Reason. Go check it out!

Read more...

Get Your Own Federal Bailout

Here's the easy application form:


If the porn industry can request a federal bailout, why not you?

Read more...

School Prayer Stupidity

Radio/TV host Glenn Beck had James "Focus on the Family" Dobson on to talk about a recent court decision that a 'moment of silence' rule in a public school was a sham to introduce sectarian religious belief into the classroom.



Beck poses as a victim, asking why it is that the 10% of the country who doesn't believe in God is pushing the other 90% around and forcing their nonbelief down their throats. Believers don't do that, he says, so why not just let people be? Of course, striking down a mandatory moment of silence-or-prayer isn't forcing nonbelief down peoples' throats -- it's only stopping believers from forcing their religion down others' throats via violations of individual rights. Talk about spin. Even purely secular-sounding "moments of silence" only exist because of believers' desire to get God into the classroom to indoctrinate children.

Beck goes on to exaggerate that "it's been deemed unconstitutional to even say the word 'prayer' to our children," and Dobson says that "they just have to eliminate even the possibility that someone might pray." Um, no: the kiddies are free to pray anywhere at any time as long as they aren't being disruptive. What's been deemed unconstitutional is taking money from taxpayers by force to fund schools students are compelled to attend, and then requiring them to do or be indoctrinated in your religion. Reading the text of the ruling, you can see how the judge traces out where and how the line is crossed. (Of course, if we didn't have government schools that people are forced to fund and required to attend, then this would be a non-issue. Don't like your school's policy regarding religious indoctrination? No rights violation there, and you're free to find or form another school. Have a nice day.)

So, does it count as dishonest or just weak-minded when Beck turns to a wider point to claim that "in this country, our rights come from God" and to ask the rhetorical question, "if you take God out of the picture, then where do rights come from?" Oh, I see your point: you don't seek to ram your religion down peoples' throats... but we really do have to make sure your religious ideas are rammed down peoples' throats lest civilization collapse. Got it.

But I'm happy he asks about the basis of rights, because it reminds me that more people need to appreciate the analysis Ayn Rand offered in her classic essay, "Man's Rights":

The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God -- others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man's nature.

The Declaration of Independence stated that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man¿s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind -- a rational being -- that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A -- and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational." (Atlas Shrugged)

Once again, the answer to the idea that our options are restricted to either religion or anything-goes subjectivism is that this alternative is malformed. Rather: it is either objectivity and facts, or whim. The right-religious whimsy approach to "rights" is just as wrongheaded and dangerous as the left-secular whimsy approach to "rights."

[HT: Pharyngula]

Read more...

Recap #30

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

• Monday, February 2, 2009: Dirty Tricks in Kansas by Diana Hsieh
  
• Wednesday, February 4, 2009: Mexican Court Case on Abortion by Diana Hsieh
  
• Friday, February 6, 2009: 13 Year Old Girl Stoned to Death by Diana Hsieh
  

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

• Monday, February 2, 2009: Massachusetts In A Nutshell by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Tuesday, February 3, 2009: Lessons From Hawaii by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Wednesday, February 4, 2009: The Trojan Horse? by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Thursday, February 5, 2009: Gingrich: The Market Can Fix the Healthcare Problem by Paul Hsieh, MD
  
• Friday, February 6, 2009: Scandlen on Massachusetts Mandates by Paul Hsieh, MD
  

This week on FA/RM, the blog of Free Agriculture - Restore Markets:

• Wednesday, February 4, 2009: What Can You Buy on Food Stamps? by Monica
  
• Wednesday, February 4, 2009: Fat Head" and Fast Food Myths by Monica
  
• Saturday, February 7, 2009: HR 778: Repeal the Interstate Raw Milk Ban by Monica
  

Read more...

Sunday Open Thread #35

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...

French Chicken in a Pot

As some of you might recall, I'm a huge fan of the fine cooks at America's Test Kitchen. I have a full shelf of their cookbooks, about 25 in all. I have a subscription to their web site, and I subscribe to their bi-monthly journal Cook's Illustrated. Oh, and I watch their excellent TV show, appropriately called America's Test Kitchen. Their recipes are not mere instructions: by their extensive testing and write-ups, they teach you the art and science of cooking. My capacity to cook a fantastic dinner of meat and veggies in thirty minutes from start to finish is almost entirely due to learning and applying their methods.

Since going on my new diet, I am more choosy about the recipes I make from them. I don't make their pastas, desserts, or any of their low-fat recipes. However, they have tons of great recipes for foods I do eat. And now that I've shed myself of my prejudice against fats, I often make the super-fatty dishes that I used to avoid, such as the brussels spouts braised in a cup of cream from their highly useful Perfect Vegetables cookbook. Also, I adapt their recipes to suit my diet, such as substituting reserved bacon fat or coconut oil for vegetable oil. Those changes are easy to manage.

Last weekend, I made their "French Chicken in a Pot." It was -- without a doubt -- the very best whole chicken I've ever eaten. The smell of it slowly cooking in its pot in the oven drove me crazy for hours. The taste of it lived up to my every hope. The chicken was amazingly juicy -- and the sauce made from the chicken drippings and few vegetables was intensely flavorful.

The "French Chicken in a Pot" recipe is available to web site subscribers here. It can also be found in the January 2008 issue of Cook's Illustrated. Since it was featured on their TV show, it's also available for free on that web site, provided that you register.

In making the recipe, I brined the chicken in saltwater beforehand to make it more juicy. I substituted reserved bacon fat for the olive oil. (Olive oil is great, but from a bit that I've read, it's not suitable for cooking at high temperatures. Plus, I love the slightly bacon flavor that the bacon fat adds.) I also added a carrot to the pot, in addition to the onion and celery. It took time to cook, but not much work.

In addition to the chicken, I also made Cook's "Quick Cooked Greens with Red Bell Pepper." That recipe is available on the web to subscribers; it was published in the January 1995 issue of Cook's Illustrated too. Once again, I substituted reserved bacon fat for the olive oil. Also, instead of mere chicken broth, I used some of the intensely-flavored liquid from the chicken. Those greens turned out quite well too.

If you're not familiar with America's Test Kitchen but you'd like to try them out, I'd recommend starting with a subscription to their web site. You can get a two week free trial, and the cost for the whole year is just $35. The web site doesn't have all the recipes they've published in all their specialty cookbooks. However, it has every recipe from over 15 years of the magazine, plus lots of helpful short videos, equipment reviews, taste tests, and cooking methods.

I'm definitely going to do more food blogging in the future -- hopefully with some pictures. I'll often point to a recipe from their web site, simply because that's what I use most often.

Read more...